User talk:Physchim62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Physchim62 flys the Skull and Crossmops as a former administrator: "I know where the lines are, because I've already crossed them!"
No responguis a l'insensat segons la seva ximpleria, perquè no et tornis com ell, també tu.
Respon a l'insensat segons la seva ximpleria, perquè no es pensi ser savi.
Proverbi 26, 4–5

→Archive 2005
→Archive 2006
→Archive 2007
→Archive 2008
→Archive 2009
→Archive 2010

This editor is a Labutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, Bookmark, and Note from Jimbo.
The large wet haddock, which keeps an eye on Physchim62.
The practical realisation of the above

Contents

Holiday[edit]

Back now, normal "service" will resume shortly! Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OrgSynAssistant (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hey PC

When you have a moment, could you take a look at his talk and respond? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, yes, that needs dealing with! I'll get onto it straight away. Physchim62 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD closed[edit]

I have closed the AfD as speedy keep. Please don't make any more WP:POINT-y nominations of well-referenced articles on topics of massive, worldwide interest. Thanks, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. Summary: please read WP:NPOV. Physchim62 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

International Burn a Koran Day[edit]

Reopening an AFD that someone else closed as a snowball close, when you're the nominator = bad idea. Don't do it again pleasethankyou. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There you are taking process over common sense, but I shall take the issue to WP:DRV if that's what you wish. You will only have wasted time that could have been spent improving an encyclopedia, after all... Physchim62 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The common sense is that every !vote so far has been a speedy keep. With that sheer number, do you really expect any other outcome? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) Not true; (2) after how much discussion? Physchim62 (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It would have cost you nothing to keep the discussion open, yet you chose to close it after less than two hours, quoting process and then !votes. As a result, the "discussion" shall now have to move to WP:DRV, wasting everybodies' time. I hope you're proud. Physchim62 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Wasting no more time than it would've wasted to keep it open and let it gather more "speedy keep"s. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62, I am with you on this one. Also, it was closed before I saw it. This so-called international event is just a one-off event which may not even happen. It is well covered in the article on the church, and the article on the event should be changed to a redirect. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You've persuaded me, along with this additional comment at WP:ITN/C. WP:SNOW is not meant to stifle real discussion about the relevance of articles in the encyclopedia, especially not in such a short time frame. WP:IAR it is then... Physchim62 (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why have the maturity to admit you are wrong when you can invoke IAR instead? 220.210.177.79 (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Decomposition of manganese(IV) fluoride[edit]

It says in the article that it decomposes to manganese(III) fluoride at room temperature. Does it liberate fluorine gas? Sorry if I am asking too many questions lately. I just seem to be curious about "quirks" in wikipedia articles. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it liberates fluorine gas. Any oxide or halide will do this if you raise the temperature high enough, but MnF4 happens to do it spontaneously (if quite slowly) at room temperature. Reading between the lines, it must be stable at or near room temperature under an atmosphere of fluorine gas, otherwise you wouldn't be able to make it in the first place: I'll see if I can dig out any details. Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't happen to have the latter chemical, but what happens when you react Manganese(IV) oxide with hydrofluoric acid? If fluorine gas could be obtained that easily, then I thought there would be more "mad scientists" making fluorine. :)--Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You would get manganese(II) fluoride, oxygen and water, that's fairly clear, as manganese(III) fluoride is a strong enough oxidizing agent to oxidize water to O2. You wouldn't get hydrogen peroxide because MnO2 happens to be a very efficient catalyst for the disproportionation of H2O2. To get MnF4 (and MnF3), you need fluorine gas. In fact, the reaction is used industrially to purify fluorine gas: you take MnF3 and convert it to MnF4 with impure fluorine, sweep away the remaining gas (which contains the impurities) and then heat the MnF4 to 70–100 °C to drive off fluorine gas which is more than 99.95% pure. Neat trick, IMHO, if you need fluorine gas that pure! Physchim62 (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Natural selection (or God, if you prefer) has a very efficient way of keeping the number of mad scientists who make significant quantities of fluorine gas extremely close to zero at any one time! Seriously, you wouldn’t be able to do it. Fluorine gas is used for uranium enrichment (i.e., making nuclear weapons) and also, perhaps more importantly, for making many of the nastiest kinds of chemical weapons. If you tried to buy the stuff you would need to produce fluorine gas safely and effectively, you would very quickly get a visit from your local secret service to find out why you wanted to do it.
I was doing my Ph.D. at the time of the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in March 1995. For about a week after the attack, the authorities said that it was impossible that the gas used was sarin because, to make sarin, you need elemental fluorine and no terrorist organization would be able to make or use fluorine gas. The second part is probably true, and even truer now than in 1995 because the controls have been tightened. On the other hand, a bunch of three or four of us on the newsgroup sci.chem had figured out within 24 hours the actual synthesis the Japanese religious nutcases had probably used, that doesn’t need fluorine gas, based on news reports of the chemicals found at their “base” and some fairly basic phosphorus chemistry. Obviously the secret services weren’t reading sci.chem at that time! (you won’t find the details of the synthesis on sci.chem, for obvious reasons: we phrased our conversations in such a way that only someone with some knowledge of phosphorus chemistry would understand, and almost all of the necessary conditions are left out). Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably my last question. Why are the manganese(III) and manganese(IV) fluorides so reactive, yet the oxides are relatively inert? If I mix manganese(IV) oxide and sugar with a drop of water I will give my word that it does not ignite. Is the bond so weak in the fluoride? If the oxides were as strong oxidizing agents, then manganese(IV) oxide would decompose to manganese(II) oxide and oxygen spontaneously. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, that’s actually quite a complicated one! Firstly, MnO2 is not really “unreactive” in the thermodynamic sense, only in the kinetic sense. German-speaking chemists normally call it Braunstein (literally “brown stone”), because (depending on how you prepare it) it can often seem to have the reactivity of your average stone. But it will give up its excess oxygen quite easily, simply by heating to 530 °C, for example (it goes to manganese(III) oxide). And it is very very difficult to get up to exactly two oxygens per manganese, not that this matters for most practical uses.
The Mn–F bonds are obviously weaker than the corresponding Mn–O bonds, or we wouldn’t see the differences in reactivity that you point out. This is quite a general rule for transition metals, M–F bonds are almost always relatively weak for M = transition metal. The usual, relatively simple explanation is called HSAB theory: fluoride is about the hardest base there is, whereas most transition metal cations are relatively soft acids.
The full explanation is a lot more complicated, because HSAB theory is only an approximation (albeit a very useful one) based on experimental observation. It turns out that fluoride is simply too hard for many high oxidation state centres. Imagine building a compound from the original ions: let’s take an Mn7+ ion as our centre. Now the manganese ion “wants” to scrape electrons from just about anywhere, because you’ve needed 38,000 kJ/mol (9000 kcal/mol) to make it! But fluoride ions are so hard that they really don’t “want” to give up their electrons to anything: the Mn7+ centre isn’t “happy” with the electrons it can scrape even from seven fluoride ions, so it spits out elemental fluorine (keeping the electrons as it goes, i.e. reducing itself) until it reaches a state where it’s “happy” (round about MnF4). The oxide ion, on the other hand, is a little bit softer than the fluoride ion, so it shares its electrons a little more easily. The Mn7+ centre can scrape just about enough electrons from four oxide ions to make it “happy” – until, that is, something comes along which is more likely to give up its electrons and hup, you have an oxidation reaction (with the manganese(VII) taking the electrons and being reduced). This is why many elements will form an oxide in a higher oxidation state than the highest fluoride. Physchim62 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. So there is more to the bonding strength than the ease of oxidation of fluoride vs. oxide. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fasciculation[edit]

Thanks for that link, it pointed me in the right direction. Now I can sleep at night, I'd started wondering if there really was such a thing as 'nerve failure' lifting weights :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoonfulsofsheep (talkcontribs) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fluorine color[edit]

I will ask you as you are knowledgeable in this area. What do you think of File:Fluorine.jpg? Is my explanation at simple:Fluorine fine? Thank you. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I dislike File:Fluorine.jpg but, as I don't have a free alternative to offer, I try not to make a big fuss about it ;) Fluorine gas is essentially colourless (see image on WebElements); it condenses to a pale yellow liquid (image, video), but then oxygen condenses to a pale blue liquid and we don't say oxygen is blue! In my mind, the "photomontage" is basically just a lie. I don't want to be too harsh on images-of-elements.com because they've been very kind in making their images available to everyone, but this isn't one of their best. Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Your article at simple:Fluorine seems fine, as far as I know about Simple English Wikipedia. The only point I would dispute is when you mention nuclear weapons. There is very little or no uranium being enriched to weapons grade at the moment, even if you count rogue states such as North Korea, Iran or Israel. In the U.S., weapons grade uranium (some bought from Russia, some local) is being "de-enriched" to serve as fuel for nuclear power stations, and civilian nuclear power has long been the major enrichment need. So I think it would be better to concentrate on the known civilian use rather than the hypothetical military use. Physchim62 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't put that into the article because I think everyone's making secret nuclear weapons. It says in our fluorine article that the two main uses of fluorine were to make UF6 and SF6. So I added the nuclear explanation, which is easier for simple wiki users to understand. Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Titrations[edit]

"Reaction" of acetic acid and sodium hypochlorite in far right test tube

I do not have any accurate equipment. I have a scale that sometimes provides bogus results. I also have bottles of tainted impure chemicals; my hydrochloric acid is green-yellow. Last of all, I have a spatula that is covered with all sorts of chemicals and a stirring rod that is a piece of plastic pipe, with chemicals inside the pipe. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I found out what was wrong. Household bleach very well may react with non-chloride acids since bleach contains sodium chloride. Pure sodium hypochlorite, on the other hand, probably won't react with acids unless it decomposed to NaCl, releasing oxygen gas. Then the Cl is there and chlorine can be produced. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, you can't do titrations! Never mind, it would have been nice to proove it to you practically, but without numerical measurements that's virtually impossible.
You still haven't quite "got it": you still don't seem to accept that hypochlorite can oxidize itself. The product of the disproportionation depends on the pH and a whole load of other conditions but, to simplify: below pH 4.56 the reduced product will be mostly chlorine; above pH 4.56 the reduced product will be mostly chloride. The rate of the dispropotionation is dependant on the hydrogen ion concentration, that is a drop in one "pH unit" increases the rate by a factor of ten. Physchim62 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a lab? If you do, please react concentrated phosphoric acid with concentrated sodium hypochlorite. Can Wikipedia support AVI files? I can take a video of reacting bleach with acetic acid. I just ruined my parent's bleach bottle by sticking dirty eyedroppers in it, though. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Chlorine test for acetic acid + sodium hypochlorite
I want to do this. Mix acetic acid and bleach. The reaction should occur slowly. Throw some salt on it. The reaction should speed up rapidly. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, but let me do the calculations first, to make sure you see the bubbles of chlorine but that you're not going to make enough chlorine to do yourself any harm. Physchim62 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I threw bleach and hydrochloric acid together just for the fun of it. Nice fizzle. As I stated in another post, I only work with millimeter quantities of chemicals (minichemistry?), so 1 millimeter of Cl2-making stuff that is much weaker than hydrochloric acid will probably not harm. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough then. Bleach and acetic acid, you say it doesn't fizzle. Best if you dissolve the NaCl in water first before you add it, that way it will mix better. Physchim62 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I could not do the chemistry experiment last night, because I was busy... I'll try again today. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Results:
  1. No visible chlorine gas was produced when household acetic acid was reacted with household bleach.
  2. A pool chlorine indicator showed that the chlorine gas produced when acetic acid was added to household bleach was hardly higher than the chlorine gas produced by sodium hypochlorite alone.
  3. The pool chlorine indicator would show light yellow for slight chlorine, bright yellow for more concentrated chlorine, and a red precipitate for any chlorine dissolved in water (provided that the chlorine indicator was placed in water)
    Chlorine test for sodium hypochlorite
Don't assume that I am being hostile to you. I am just trying to prove a hypothesis. This process is important to all scientific studies. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights[edit]

A nice piece of work, and very useful. May I suggest a few things though?

  • The Non-restored copyrights and especially Subsisting copyrights sections are confusing to the point that they're ridiculously difficult to understand.
  • Maybe the page could use an update? Don't worry so much on this last point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Philippe Croizon[edit]

--Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

CatalunyaCaixa[edit]

Bones! He vist que has creat l'article de CatalunyaCaixa. Tinc un dubte sobre una informació, has posat que és parcialment propietat de la Generalitat de Catalunya. No n'estic segur d'això... pot ser un error per que Caixa Catalunya és/era propietat de la Diputació de Barcelona i la Caixa Tarragona de la Diputació de Tarragona? (la de Manresa és/era privada). Bé no se si és cert, però en cas que ho sigui, igualment s'hauria d'afegir lo de les diputacions.

un salut!--Vilar 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jo tampoc n’estic segur! Vaig crear l’article al moment de les proves d’estrès aquest estiu, perquè ningú angloparlant no reconeixia els nous nombres de les noves caixes fusionades. No he trobat massa informació sobre la nova caixa, tampoc en català, llavors he utilitzat el nostre article Caixa Catalunya com guió, d’on ve el punt sobre la “propietat parcial” de la Generalitat.
No em sembla clar de parlar d’una “propietat” sobre les caixes i no sé lo que passaria amb un excedent de liquidació, si una caixa seria dissoluta en estat de solvència. La Diputació de Barcelona era l’entitat fundadora de Caixa Catalunya, però no sé a quin punt la Generalitat de Macià va assumir responsabilitats abans la guerra incivil, ni si hi va haver trasllats de poder en democràcia. Al contrari, sé que la Generalitat era molt implicada en Caixa Catalunya fa uns anys, i que els funcionaris de la Generalitat era “fortament aconsellats” de rebre el sou en un compte allà. En l’incertitud, he tret la frase de l’article. Physchim62 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Butter[edit]

[1] nice:) DMacks (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SandyGeorgia[edit]

I won't template you, but you know better. Telling another user to "shut the fuck up", even by using the acronym (we all know what it means) is completely unacceptable. It's a personal attack; plain as day. Do it again and I'll have to block you. Courcelles 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but I too will block you if I see any repetition of this. I see you have a clean block log; let's try to keep it that way. I don't know what your dispute is but whatever it is, "STFU" is not an appropriate way to deal with it. Walk away for a few hours and I'm sure it will seem less urgent and serious. Let me know if you need any other help or support. --John (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN for David Lloyd Johnston[edit]

--Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that must be one of the easiest ITN thingies ever; but I'm glad we could agree on how much update was needed. Physchim62 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Ajka alumina plant accident[edit]

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk[edit]

Hi Physchim. I'm sorry you found my response to the OP somewhat 'bitey', but it wasn't intended that way and I believe it is not as clear cut as you made it to be. Frankly I'd like it if you could review your statements before submitting them and try to AGF. Hope you're well. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I found your remark offensive and in no way justified by anything said by Cyclonenim whom you chose to attack. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's look first at the two edits from Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) that I thought were a bit "off":

To have two edits in the space of a minute that I considered "off", on different topics and from an editor whose edits I usually find to be constructive made me think that he or she was just having a bad day for whatever reason, and that everything would be fine when they came back after a night's sleep or whatever. That was the sense of my intervention.
As for Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs) finding my intervention "offensive", and choosing to come here to inform me of this essential fact, claiming that I have some how 'chosen to attack' Cyclonenim, well, everyone is free to have their own opinion, that is the inalieable right of being human. On the other hand, for an editor who was in no way involved in the exchanges to waste their time coming here to express their feeling of offense, in particular an editor who stars their own talk page with an invocation of WP:RPA (for which read "if I don't like it, I'll ignore it"), then such an editor will inevitably go down several notches in my respect and esteem (whether or not my respect or esteem matters in the slightest to the editor concerned, which I doubt). Physchim62 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw only your second response to Cyclonenim because I review Ref. desks starting from the bottom (latest question). I suggest you try waiting a little before a making a snap response if a post seems inadequate to you at first reading. That would have given you time to realize, as you do now, that Cyclonenim was not trying to be dismissive. Please inspect the question again because it was not, as you say, clearly formulated. It contained no question mark, just a statement by the OP of his background and study ambitions.
  • Cyclonenim acknowledged the post with his "Okay" and sought to clarify how the desk volunteers could be helpful. I think you must have injected a sarcastic intonation that was never there. The only useful treatment that I can think of is to ask you to speak a number of times into a mirror the words Cyclonenim used until you find a way to express them that is inoffensive.
  • Your post is offensive because its intention is to disparage another editor and make his presence on the ref. desk uncomfortable.
  • Your post is disruptive because you broke into the dialog that started between the OP and Cyclonenim with observations that have nothing to do with the perceived question.
  • You now introduce matters that are irrelevant to your offensive post, such as
    • the speculation by Looie496 not you that the OP needed information on synapsids, and
    • that you had accumulated irritation from a previous post by Cyclonenim. It is unjustifiable to expose a new questioner to umbrage from an exchange of which they had no part.
I support your right to have your opinion. You are correct that my involvement is not with the particular question, it is as a occasional volunteer on the Ref. Desks. You are correct that I apply WP:RPA at my talk page. You were certainly wrong to express your displeasure with Cyclonenim the way you did instead of by a note to Cyclonenim's talk page. If Cyclonenim wanted to raise your behaviour as a complaint at WP:WQA instead of the tolerant approach actually made here, I am sure there would be repercussion. Please note that I am not an administrator. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3 is just coming back from two consecutive blocks for harassment, so take his advice on etiquette with a grain of salt.
For what it's worth, I too read Cyclonenim's remark as irritated and sarcastic, ("So what'd'ya want us to do about it?!?") although I understand now that it wasn't. APL (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hey. Let's not get too worked up over this, I wasn't expecting anyone else to reply to this other than Physchim. I completely understand that the internet lacks clarity for sarcasm, and so I was initially going to let this slide and just leave an apology on the RD. The reason I came here to make a comment is because of Physchim's recent actions at SandyGeorgia's talk page where he told her to "STFU". I didn't appreciate being told to bite my tongue for something not altogether offensive, when his/her actions somewhere else were openly aggressive. The way I see it is that if I was being sarcastic/aggressive with my remark, it would have been noted as such with something not too dissimilar from APL's example above -- but I didn't. Let's just let this pass, there's no big deal and no damage done. No need to bring personal attacks into this, I didn't see it that way, I just ask that we apply WP:AGF in future :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyclonenim, I think you refer to a content dispute about this article about which last month an admin contacted Physchim. That is an issue that does not need any new input here. APL is correct about my blocks and also shows well how an ill-disposed hasty reader can deduce hostile meaning in innocent speech. Joke: A church censor demanded that a new book be banned. The author asked why. The censor pointed at a line where a character said "Look here!". What is wrong with that? asked the author. The censor shouted back It's obvious to any decent person that those words mean "Come innocent child and look here through this keyhole at naked people..." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
That is indeed to what I am referring, and I'm not suggesting we discuss it further. I am just explaining why I decided to leave a message here. Let's just leave it be now, okay? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Magyar Alumínium Termelő és Kereskedelmi Zrt.[edit]

It's not bad Hungarian, only bad spelling of the name. It does not follow the uniform spelling rules (as known as akadémiai helyesírás, that is "ortography rules of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences"). We (in the huwiki) always fix these spelling mistakes (see the Hungarian interwikilink for the company's article) without checking the company's spelling customs, since the company is not a source for spelling rules, neither an authority for correct ortography. That is the general custom of handling common spelling mistakes. There is an additonal factor: to spell such compound words as "alumíniumtermelő" & "alumíniumkereskedelmi" properly according to the rules is not a simple task even for native speakers. The enwiki community certainly can do what is wants, I only wanted to inform you about such cases of misspelling & the general custom of their handling. Bennó (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "Bad Hungarian", that it doesn't follow accepted orthography. However, on English Wikipedia, we always follow the orthography used by the subject of the article, even if it is "incorrect" – hence eBay and k. d. lang, for example. Physchim62 (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Maybe you are having exactly the same problem that we have in German? There seems to be a general tendency to separate words that should be written together according to normal orthography rules, especially in titles. No doubt the influence of English plays a role in this. While these are clear misspellings, I think the general practice in the German-speaking part of the world is to simply accept it if a company has decided to misspell its own name. These companies are normally registered under the misspelled name, so it's in fact the only correct way to refer to them. Hans Adler 09:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess what's happening here is that the company wants the word "Alumínium" in its name to stand out. Physchim62 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. There are many reasons, actually. Long words misspelled in this way are easier to read even for native speakers. English does it like that. It probably has advantages in connection with search engines. And since companies in general are doing it more and more, managers tend to do it because they think it's cool. German orthography is slowly moving that way. Maybe it's the same in Hungarian, but with more resistance due to a stronger sense that the language should stay "pure" and uniform? Hans Adler 10:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Um, thanks, but it was actually User:Nimur who explained antenna theory. –Henning Makholm (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! No harm done, your black hole explanation was pretty good as well! Physchim62 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Benoît Mandelbrot[edit]

--Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atomic weight/Table[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Atomic weight/Table has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Even though this has been around since 2006 it never developed into a proper article. If somebody wants to know the weight of a specific element he can either click the link in the Periodic table (standard) or use the featured list Periodic table (large version). I therefore see no purpose in keeping this version around.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yoenit (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident[edit]

Hi, and thank you for researching the Spanish language media for sources. I am purposely not replying to your hard work about the t-shirts on the talk page yet in an attempt to not dominate the discussion so other people can weigh in.

On a separate but related concern. Have you had confidence that all the Spanish sources cited in fact cover the statements that they are attached to? My Spanish is not good enough to even attempt to review them so I haven't been flagging them as unverified out of good faith.

Cheers Veriss (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I speak Spanish ;) ¡Yo hablo español! I wouldn't deliberately post something I didn't have faith in, although I can make mistakes like everyone. The three sources for the T-shirts appear to be independent of one another, not simply copies of agency reports. Physchim62 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh...no no no!!! I was referring to the dozens of other citations in the article from other editors, many anon IPs. I'm very sorry that I worded that so poorly. I did not have a single thought to doubt your sources. You've worked very hard on the article as have many other Spanish speaking editors. Again, my sincere apologies. Veriss (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my misunderstanding! I've not really looked at the other Spanish sources in the article. Well, to tell you the truth, I've not looked at them at all ;) I tend to AGF on such things, unless the statement being sourced is obviously suspect. Especially when the article is rapidly changing! I'll take a quick look through now. Physchim62 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The creator of the graphic has replied to our posts on Wikicommons and it seems that he is willing to help. I'm not sure how to link from there to here.

You type [[commons:File talk:MSJ.en.svg#Factually incorrect]] ;) Your message crossed with my reply at commons, but thanks for letting me know anyway: I don't spend much time on commons so I could easily have missed it. Physchim62 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident[edit]

You deleted an edit I made on the corporate section of this article. Your reason for deletion is given as vandalism. I added the following line to the list of companies that provided equipement to the rescue.

Mincon International Ltd of Ireland manufactured the Mincon MX5053 reverse circulation hammer and drill bits that drilled the breakthrough hole.

I added three news sources. One to the company itself, one to a national newspaper and one to a popular newssite. Unfortunately, the Mincon site is down at the moment, but information about their involvement is available through the Google cache of their site. There is a plethora of news sources on Mincon on the web, including: The Irish Times ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1014/1224281064133.html ) BBC ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11544067 )

If you had good reason(s) for deleting my contribution, then please enlighten me.

I may have been wrong in my edit but tellimg me to "Die. Fall down and die, stupid drool." is not good form.

(talk) 15.33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Errm, I think you've made a mistake there somewhere... I haven't deleted anything from 2010 Copiapó mining accident that corresponds to the description of your contribution, and ecrtainly not with edit summary that you quote. Physchim62 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Leonard Singer[edit]

The attack was a recent addition by an IP: I have reverted to the pre-vandalism version. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident[edit]

Sweet, I knew if I put that on the To-Do list someone would know how to fix it. I couldn't figure it out at all. Thanks and cheers! Veriss (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Enough: Civil, AGF, and edit summaries[edit]

Please refresh your memory on WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and proper use of edit summaries.

I understand you may still be troubled over the wayward "s" in a Featured article that you saw eons ago that no reviewer picked up, but I had to read that paragraph (back then) half a dozen times before I spotted it even after you pointed it out; I wish we could resolve whatever led to your campaign against FAC and now appears increasingly directed at me.

You were already warned about personal attacks when you told me to Shut The Fuck Up. Today you labeled an edit you clearly knew in advance was a good faith edit as vandalism. Is there something we need to talk about to get your AGFometer back on track? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you stopped traipsing around Wikipedia like a little diva, assuming that you opinion is always the absolute and only truth, then I might be more polite to you. You've done it at ITN, you did it at Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010 and now you've done it twice at DYK in two days. Your "contributions" in all cases were inappropriate to say the least, and certainly unfitting of an editor of your experience. What on earth made you think that templating a project talk page was the correct method to get people to listen to your "arguments" instead of immediately putting their backs up? For as long as your style is maximum noise and minimum effort, you cannot expect to be treated any better by your fellow editors. Physchim62 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As for your major blanking on José Sisto, a good faith editor would have AGFfed for the reviewer, and checked the source before crying "incompetence" at WT:DYK and (wait for it) WP:ANI as well. You neither assumed good faith in the edtiors who went before you, nor did you do the most basic of source verification. You simply blanked out of your own bad faith: that to me is vandalism. Physchim62 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
A couple of points. Unless you're an admin (you aren't anymore) or have powerful admin friends, civility is not an option on Wiki, and "traipsing around Wikipedia like a little diva" doesn't cut it. Second, you don't get to tell other editors where to go on Wiki. My contributions in all cases were not inappropriate: if all you can come up with is one good-faith mistake about a BLP, you're digging deep. Third, I did check the source-- I got a link to a webcitation (no wonder I hate them, they don't take you to the real source-- work on your AGF, and try to take an example from the editor of Sisto, who fully understood). ITN ran a POV article on the mainpage because I decided not to mess with it anymore. My style seems to be working. Now, are we going to talk rationally about your issues with CIVIL, AGF and a faulty edit summary (which I believe is now the second time you've done that), or do you want to call me more names, which will just roll off my back? You knew it was a good faith edit, not vandalism, because you had read the discussion-- so, basically, calling it vandalism is attacking the editor. You've been around long enough to know that your "personal" definition of vandalism doesn't cut it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I should be careful. "Unless you're an admin […] or have powerful admin friends, civility is not an option on Wiki": this implies that you feel that civility is an option for yourself, an long-standing admin with lots of "powerful admin friends". It wouldn't look very good on an RfC. Our encounters over the last few weeks seem to support this view in my eyes: you neither assume good faith in your fellow editors, nor do you even accord them a minimum of respect for their work. I have seen your attitude on multiple pages over the last few weeks, and I certainly don't go out looking for confrontations with you: I can only assume that many other pages have suffered but that I am unaware of them. You have been an admin long enough to know that "this is what I think" doesn't cut things at all: if you are not prepared to edit cooperatively with your colleagues, I find it hard to see what you have to offer to a collaborative project such as this one. If you feel that you can tell me that I have "issues with CIVIL, AGF", you can hardly complain when I say exactly the same about yourself. Physchim62 (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't imply that at all-- you need to get out more often, and then you would know what it means. I see you're improving though; at least your last revert didn't incorrectly assert vandalism, merely allowed sourcing that is not up to par for BLP standards to stay on the mainpage. Me, an admin? Physchim, where have you been? And it appears that the more sound thinking folk at DYK don't agree with you on this issue, but you've now affected content at both ITN and DYK because you seem to have some animosity towards me and FAC. The only civility and AGF failures are coming from you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) You know that Sandy isn't an admin, right? Your tone isn't helping DYK at all. Discuss first, then revert after everything's hashed out (not right after/before you post to WT:DYK). Sandy has exercised the few places where reverting first is preferred: copyvios and BLP. Whether or not you think she acted appropriately shouldn't change your behavior. Shubinator (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently he wasn't aware I'm not an admin nor have I ever wanted to be one, or that my reference to civility and admins above was to well-documented cases that WP:CIVIL is applied unequally to admins and other editors. At any rate, his tone and faulty reverts and failure to AGF are affecting mainpage content-- now at both DYK and ITN. I'll make an allowance for the fact that he may have misunderstood my good faith comments, because he mistakenly thought I was an admin, but I hope his AGF improves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd guess it will; I've seen it happen. Maybe we should revisit this conversation tomorrow when things have died down a bit. (One of the problems seems to be that you two only get into a conversation when one makes an edit and gets a kneejerk reaction from the other.) Shubinator (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Actually, I didn't know Sandy was not an admin: I apologise for my false assumption, although, we probably all agree that admins have no greater leeway in the civility stakes than other editors (unless they're … no, I won't finish that one!) Sandy specifically asked me to look at the article, and it's certainly not wonderful, but to say that Sky is not a reliable source is stretching things somewhat. If WP is to have articles on "entertainment" subjects, then of course it has to use "entertainment" sources. Sky is a major UK media outlet, and so a reliable source in the same way as the BBC. The IMDb is an actively curated database: it is not simply an open wiki, and it is used as a source without problems on many many WP articles. I would have preferred it had Sandy made her concerns known before tagging, given as the article was on the Main Page at the time, but I'm glad that she didn't just tag and walk away. Physchim62 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
@Shubinator: one of us AGFs, the other doesn't. It's quite simple, and it's one of the reasons why AGF is so critical on Wiki. I signed off of ITN after I discovered Psychim was there, because he seems to have some animosity towards to me. Had I known he was also at DYK, I certainly wouldn't have tried to help out with the issues there. And honestly, DYK from what I've now seen is in bad enough shape, that if they won't "police" their own and the process, my help will have no effect anyway. Phys, your knowledge of sourcing for BLPs is lacking. Check the RSN archives on IMDb. PS, I specifically asked you to look at what article? Diff please? And for gosh sakes, we don't just "make our concerns known" before tagging on a BLP that is on the mainpage, with piss poor sourcing! We have a BLP policy for a reason! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah, I mentioned after I pulled it that it was a borderline case. I was hoping the article could be given a quick facelift and put back up on the main page. Articles on the main page are fair game for just about anything. Some people say that those types of templates encourage readers to become editors. Still, discuss first, then revert. And maintain the higher moral ground. Shubinator (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, now you're borderline AGF. He's referring to this; I'm assuming it was sarcasm. And Physchim's coming from the direction that DYKs aren't perfect; many of them don't adhere to the strict letter of Wikipedia guidelines, but they're still far better than average Wikipedia articles. Both of you have reasonable points to make. Shubinator (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Also Sandy, it's not uncommon for DYK articles to be subpar for Wikipedia policies. For example, I had an uphill battle getting "more than one source is preferred" into the DYK additional rules (archive) - yet it's in WP:N! IMDb is questionable as a DYK source; some have said it's not (Alansohn and Mattisse foremost), others accept it. Shubinator (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
@Sandy after multiple (edit conflict): [2] We both agree that DYK is in a bad state, and that view seems to be shared by other editors. We seem to think that for different reasons, which is actually a Good Thing: it means that either of us can be wrong in our reasoning without it affecting the general conclusion. I also think there is a common solution to our grievances with DYK, that is "more eyes on the hooks that are posted". Perfection is an inachievable goal, either for a WikiProcess or for any individual editor, but it would surely be better if we both worked towards improving the WikiProcesses rather than wasting our time on some sort of battle based on personal animosity (real or imagined). For what it's worth, I deliberately refrained from replying to your original templating of WT:DYK, as per WP:DISENGAGE. Physchim62 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Shu after multiple ecs too ... ah, thanks! Misunderstanding. I was referring to the fact that the article, per BLP policy, should be blanked, but since he had failed to AGF on my Sisto blanking, I didn't dare do it again, so I was saying I would leave the blanking to him. Little did I know he would revert tagging of marginal sourcing to a BLP with a faulty argument that we allow lesser quality sourcing for entertainment, when policy is that we DEMAND high quality sources for BLPs, whether the statements are derogatory, neutral or whatever. That article should be largely blanked. I know DYKs aren't perfect nor are they supposed to be, but copyvio and BLP issues shouldn't stand on the mainpage, and when someone tries to help address those, they shouldn't be subject to the kind of treatment Physchim has dished out. I don't care that the artices are subpar, I know they're supposed to be an incentive for new content and improvement (although if I edit one, I will fix other easy things I see, like overlinking), but we can't put plagiarism, copyvios, and BLP vios on the mainpage! But then, neither should POV be on the mainpage, and the ITN folks pulled the one where Phys reverted my very high quality sourcing and introduced POV ... Anyway, I misunderstood the comment that I had asked for his input, so my apologies for that-- I meant that I would leave the blanking to him so he wouldn't level badfaith charges at me again. IMDb is NOT acceptable anywhere for most info, but that only matters on a BLP wrt DYK-- it is mostly contributor content, except for a few items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK isn't used to aggressive BLP vetting, which explains the reaction you got. (Copyvios, on the other hand, have been immediately pulled off of DYK for years now.) Screening DYK sets before they hit the main page will slow down the pace a tad and hopefully ease in stricter BLP enforcement. Shubinator (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but failure to vet BLPs also explains why WikiReview trashes DYK all the time-- y'all have to get on that. Unfortunately, my first mistake (see below, on Sisto) may have set a bad environment, and contributed to some of this kerfuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
@Phys-- that's an improvement in the tone I usually encounter from you :) I'm not sure what you're referring to with my original templating at DYK? My concern with the mainpage is copyright and BLP vios. My concern with DYK is how the reward culture uses it, and that affects our shoddy admin corp (no, civility is NOT applied equally to admins, they can call the rest of us "wankers" or whatever they want with impunity-- there is a double standard, and for standards to improve at RFA, DYK has to stop being part of the reward culture). If DYK improves and the "reward culture" climbers find out it's not so easy, they'll find other ways to get prizes, and hopefully have less impact on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

More DYK stuff[edit]

Follow up. And now, after all our edit conflicts, I've taken the time to re-read José Sisto, understanding that my mistake there may have predisposed you on the second article, which was a BLP, to mistrust and quickly revert me. I still can't find any mention on that article that Sisto is dead; the original author says there is no source for the date of his death, but if the article said anywhere that he was dead, and if I hadn't gone first to an archived link, I might not have made such a big mistake. I read what I thought was a BLP, and got to work. I know DYKs aren't supposed to be perfect, but the article (unless I'm missing it) implies he's alive! I'm sorry if that mistake led to part of this, and I'm glad the original author was so gracious and understanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oof, you raise several points there, and I really must go to bed soon if I'm not to make some silly comment. So important things first! I COMPLETELY AGREE with you that the reward culture is a poison to all the Main Page sections (and FAC as well, even if it's not technically Main Page). IMHO, the WikiCup should be banned from WP under the Esperanza precedent: we can't stop it from springing up elsewhere, but at least we can say that it's not welcome. Secondly the reverts! I applied completely different editorial criteria to the two different articles, but in both cases I feel that you could have done a bit more research yourself before shouting for help. It's quite possible that I prejudged the second article on the basis of my reaction to the first – I'm only human after all – but it's really not helpful to other editors if you call something a copyvio when it's a plagiarism problem, or if you call something a BLP problem when it's really a WP:RS problem. The hard words are there for really serious cases, not borderline cases, otherwise we end up in a "Cry Wolf" situation where we risk missing the really serious problems through lack of volunteer resources. We can (I hope politely) disagree as to which situations are the most serious, but surely we must agree that some situations are more serious than others, and that our volunteer resources are limited. As for José Sisto, he was Governor of Guam 1898–1899, as is noted in the infobox: he cannot reasonably be alive today, more than 110 years later! I assume that there are no reliable birth and death dates, and for that reason none are quoted, but all adults alive in 1899 are now dead (unless you know of an exception). That was why I accused you of "not reading the article" or something along those lines.
As for admins having different standards from the rest of us, it might interest you to know that I resigned my bit after it became clear that I wasn't allowed to block an admin for 24 hours after he called my arguments "a great steaming load of crap" (gory details here); I do not want to be associated with such logic, and I enjoy myself much more without the admin bit than I did with it. Finally, as for "templating", I'm referring to this edit: we have an essay that says "Don't template the regulars", and that must surely apply doubly to a project talk page such as WT:DYK. Anyway, I must go to bed. Physchim62 (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
On the reward culture, even if we kill WIKICUP, they'll still use copyvio and non-reliably sourced DYKs as "prizes" they can tout at RFA. Yes, Wikicup is feeding the problem, but unless DYK tightens up, the problem will just move from Wikicup to RFA and other kinds of rewards. Most "reward seeking" editors aren't really equipped to be writing for an encyclopedia, but they crave the ultimate reward of adminship, so they'll seek their prizes wherever they are easiest to get. That used to be GA, but many of us screamed long and loud enough that GA has turned into a good review process (depending on who reviews, and there are still bad GAs, but bad reviews are more the exception than the norm now, since the same light was shown on that piece of reward culture that needs to be shone on DYK). Now they seek them at DYK.
To me, the BLP/RS problem are one and the same-- BLPs must use high quality sources per BLP.
I don't read infoboxes-- HATE those things-- but I still should have picked up that he was dead. I was only offering an explanation for how I missed it the first time through. Which isn't a very good excuse anyway-- it was a big mistake. For that reason, I checked the second article sourcing more carefully, and stopped short of blanking the article, even though I believe that is still called for by BLP policy. As long as it's been pulled from the queue, I'm less worried.
We share feelings and frustration about what is accepted from admins and what passes for civility-- that's why I've never even wanted to be part of the club. Double standards apply-- I like being on the side that has to follow the rules, but my stance means attacks on me are allowed to stand, generally.
Ah, on templating Talk:DYK, that was because that Camel editor made such a big fuss at ANI about me not reading the template instructions, so I read the instructions and followed 'em! Partly to show that those templates are just a wee bit out of control.
Besides the reward culture problem, BLPs, copyright and plagiarism, lack of reliable sourcing at DYK is another concern. DYKs are awarded based on the size of the article expansion, but if that expansion isn't based on reliable sources, or if it's not even clear if articles meet notability (one of those I identified today has only one source if you remove the non-RS), then the expansion and word count is meaningless. But that's not as big of a problem as copyvio or BLP violation. I think DYK has been pressed too hard by the "reward culture", and abused of by it, and they need to figure out how to slow it way down, turn some folks down (why do people believe their mainpage slot is "owed" to them), and screen better. The problem is being fed by the reward culture, but DYK is letting it happen; they need to set their ship right. Off to bed myself, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to disagree with the other points you make, but I think one problem is the over-reliance on a "box-checking" approach to quality control. You end up with this long list of things that must be checked to ensure "high quality" – and the list of criteria for DYK is already pretty long – only to realise that nobody's checked the simpler points, or the ones that might require a judgment call. Checkers are lulled into a false sense of security because they think they've got everything covered by their wonderful 'objective' set of quality criteria, but they risk not seeing the wood for the trees. I used to be in charge of QC at a small chemical factory, and the first item on every QC protocol was "does it look right?" – because if it didn't look right, there was no need to bother with any more complicated tests because there was no way we were going to accept the material from our supplier or send it out to our customer.
The "reward culture", as you put it, also comes into this. If editors are submitting articles into the process with the expectation that it's their "right" to get them through, reviewers will want to find the most objective criteria possible to reject things to give themselves ammunition in the inevitable arguments that follow. Fine, fair enough, I'm not saying we should do away with objective checks altogether. But we should also remember that "quality" is a fundamentally subjective concept, and so our quality control procedures should always allow for a subjective aspect. Physchim62 (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be a long time before I can catch up, so I'll just say: 1) I noticed at DYK that you have been one editor long advocating for all the right things (slow it down, check better, etc), and 2) your recent input at FAC is most helpful. I'm glad we sorted this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia[edit]

Since you are also reviewing current TFAs, I was wondering if you could take a look (just to be on the safe side) the Stephens City, Virginia article. It was promoted to FA on August 15, 2010 and promoted to TFA on September 5, 2010. It was my main project for the past two and half years, I used 78 sources (several more than once), one with an active OTRS ticket, I had many people working on the article, two PRs, multiple independent reviews during GAN and FAC, along with weeks of tinkering and constant updates, so I don't think I can say with a good deal of certainty there aren't any copyvios, but with the current mindset of the community, I want to make absolutely sure. So, could you give the page a look-see and check for me. I would greatly appreciate it. Take Care...NeutralhomerTalk • 23:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again since it has been covered. - NeutralhomerTalk • 16:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I did take a look through it, I just forgot to get back to you! I couldn't see any problems: in fact, I was quite impressed as to how you've managed to paraphrase some of the factual material, especially in the "Religion" section. There's no such thing a a "100% copyvio free" certificate, but I see no reason to worry about this article. Physchim62 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I had some help with the "Religion" section to make it sound FA material as my prose isn't of the best quality. The "History" section was by far the most edited section with numerous edits and that is where the OTRS ticket came into play. I appreciate you taking a look and no worries on forgetting, happens to me too. :) Take Care...NeutralhomerTalk • 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Racist woolas oldham leaflet.jpg[edit]

I don't think the situation here is particularly clear. The uploader seems to claim to be Joseph Fitzpatrick who was/is the election agent for Woolas. However, it seems unlikely that the images which are used in the leaflet can be considered pd even if the creator of the leaflet releases it as pd. This perhaps could be converted to fair use or alternatively I think a deletion discussion would be appropriate to consider some of the issues here. Adambro (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend use of RevDel, RFC/U[edit]

Hey, Phys, no admin can seem to be bothered to answer my question about who I should notify, so I'm notifying you since I mention the interaction between you and me that led to Nyttend's use of RevDel. Sorry it had to come to this, but he just wouldn't respond to me, used RevDel again, and continues to allege that I vandalized. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I guess I'll have to head over to the WikiTortureChamber with my best trout... I never like doing that, it always seems such a waste of good trout! Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry again :( I hoped not to have to revisit this, but it wasn't getting addressed or resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN[edit]

Hi -- I think I'm going to take a break from ITN for a bit (too much stress). Can you let me know on my talk page if they ever get around to retooling the criteria page? I'll want to be a part of that. Thanks -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, no problem. Sorry to hear you're feeling stressed out by ITN, but it's true that there are plenty of things to do on Wikipedia for any editor who's looking for a change of scene. As for reworking the criteria, my hunch is that it's coming sooner rather than later. A lot depends on how the current mega-debate at DYK turns out, but I've no doubt that wider attention will eventual turn to ITN once DYK is deemed to have been "sorted out" ;) Physchim62 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right -- there's a lot to do on WP, and there's no reason to get bogged down in something if it's stressful. I get enough stress in the rest of my life to worry too much about something like ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! And I quite admit that I should maybe take my own advice sometimes ;) Best wishes, and hope to see you around somewhere soon! Physchim62 (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please help defend modern Metrology[edit]

Hi -- I need the help of experts in the field of metrology. Since you seem to be knowledgeable in metrology, I would really appreciate your help here.

-Kehrli (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to help with informal mediation at Kendrick mass/Kendrick (unit). I will wait for what looks like a denial of my amendment request at ArbCom and then file a request for informal mediation if that seems appropriate. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I set up a Mediation Cabal case here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-11-21/Kendrick_mass --Kkmurray (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still waiting for a reply from Kehrli, but I do some background reading in the meantime. Physchim62 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Physchim. I was not aware that you are waiting for a reply. Did I miss something? Sorry. What should I reply to? -Kehrli (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I did wonder if you'd missed something. I made this comment at the arbitration request, basically saying I don't agree with either side and that the dispute seems so minor (and technical) that it would be best resolved by mediation. Could you read through my short analysis (whether you agree with it or not, I'm not imposing that as a solution) and Kkmurray's summary of what s/he sees as the dispute, and then let me know if you think mediation is a viable option? Physchim62 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I read your comment, of course, but I did not know that you are waiting for an answer. I can give an answer, of course. Can I be frank? My first reaction when I read your comment was a slight disappointment, because there are quite a few errors in there:
1 You write about the Th and the Ke: The two units are of the same type, .... In fact the Th is a unit of mass/charge, whereas the Ke is a mass.
I dispute that the Ke is a unit of mass. It is only a unit of mass if you assume z =1 (which, for all practical purposes, where the Ke would be used, is true). Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken here. The Kendrick analysis works on mass, not on mass/charge.
2 You write the following formula: mKe =mu/(Ar(12C)+2Ar(1H))e = 1 Ke. Even ignoring the division by e, which we discussed above, the formula is wrong. It should be: mKe =mu⋅(Ar(12C)+2Ar(1H))/14 = 1 Ke.
Yes, my formula seems to be wrong. Such things happen, especially in a tense editing environment. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I know, and you showed that you can admit an error. This is good for you.
3 You write: ... the current definition of the thomson on Wikipedia is a classic example of harmlessly sloppy metrology by chemists: it has units on both sides of the equation, yet units from different, incoherent systems! You seem to think that in a non-coherent system of units it is fundamentally wrong to define a unit with other units. That is not true. An incoherent system of units usually has some derived units. It is just so that all units are derived without coefficients from the base units. So you cannot write equations with units on both sides blindly.
I stand by my statement. The three different systems of units are related by experimentally determined physical constants; the relationships to those physical constants must be made explicit in order to express the uncertainty budget. However, I think there is a disagreement as to what constitutes a "constant" and what constitutes a "unit", so let's discuss this further. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
A unit is a constant that is used as a unit by convention. There does not have to be a system of units involved for every unit. Some units run around naked.
4 You write: Q is continuous and has the dimension IT, while z is discontinuous and has the dimension 1. This is a risky sentence to write. Q is not really continuous. Nature has decided (at least we believe today) to use charge in quants. Therefore Q is not continuous. However, I agree with you so far that Q does not need to be quantisized. Q would work in a world where charge is continuous, whereas z is not continuous by design. In that sense Q is more general and does not need as many a priory assumptions about the world it describes as does z.
Q is continuous by convention, that is we can (and do) write differential equations involving dQ. Of course electric charge is quantized at the molecular level, and this was the distinction I was trying to get at. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Distinction? The distinction was wrong. Both, Q and z are not continuous at the molecular level.
5 Along the same line: mass spectrometers would work in a world where charge is not quantisized. They truly measure mass/charge, not a mass/(charge state), of particles. They would work with quarks if they would exist freely. If mass spectrometers would contain a mechanism that counts charge carriers, m/z would be more appropriate. However, they contain fields that exert a force on charge. This is why m/Q is the more appropriate quantity for mass spectrometers. m/z is an interpretation of the m/Q that is originally being measured.
No, mass spectrometers work in the real world, where charge is quantized, and their output is interpreted on the basis of quantized charge, not continuous charge. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, and Q handles quantized charge as well as continuous charge. It is universal. We don't need z, which does not even have a dimension charge.
6 You write: The only way to measure the magnetic field along the path of interest is to calibrate the output of the mass spectrometer for an ion whose mr/z is accurately known. There is no way you can measure the magnetic field along a path with this method.
"Measure the magnetic field" might be an unfortunate oversimplification: you measure the response of your apparatus for an ion of known mr/z (which depends on uncertain electric fields as well as uncertain magnetic fields). I was assuming negligible uncertainty in E, which I admit is unphysical. Nevertheless, it is well known that it is easier to generate a precisely known E than a precisely known B. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You write: I say “pretend to measure”, because ℚ (whatever name you give it) cannot be measured directly without a knowledge of the magnetic field, a recurring problem in metrology. The only way to measure the magnetic field along the path of interest is to calibrate the output of the mass spectrometer for an ion whose mr/z is accurately known: let’s call this calibration output ℚ°. So the measurement result of a mass spectrometric measurement is actually ℚ/ℚ°, a quantity that is obviously of dimension one. The spectrometrist (or, more usually, the spectrometer) then multiplies by the known value ofmr/z for the standard to give ℚ. Yet both mr and z are also quantities of dimension one, so ℚ itself must also be of dimension one. Or, to be more precise, it is a quantity of dimension one related to the physical response of the mass spectrometer by a calibration constant.
I do not quite see what your point in this lengthy discussion is, but there are several issues where I disagree:
7 Your description of a calibration is too simplified. In a calibration you start (as you write) with a known standard ℚ°, from this calibrate your unit [ℚ], with this unit you measure ℚ. Measuring means finding the numerical factor {ℚ} = ℚ/[ℚ]. The result is the quantity ℚ = {ℚ}[ℚ].
I didn't exactly want to write paragraphs on the topic. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you did. So let's make it right.
8 The fact whether ℚ is dimensionless or not does not play a role at all.
Disagree. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I am eager to learn from you.
9 Do you agree with the following statement: mr/z is dimensionless, but m/z is never dimensionless. m/z has dimension M.
m/z is unmeasurable at the molecular scale, at least in SI units. m/z can be measured if you measure m in daltons, but this is equivalent to saying mr/z in the International System of Quantities. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not equivalent. m/z is a mass, mr/z is dimensionless.
10 The dimensionless mr and the dimensionless Ar that you mention, are both ratios of two masses. Therefore, strictly speaking, they are not masses.
They're ratios of masses, of course. But be careful! A measurement of mass under SI is related through traceability to a ratio of the measurand to the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram. This goes to the basis of the definition of a unit, and is where I think both yourself and Kkmurray are mistaken in your arguments. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think both, Kkmurray and I are not interested in using SI units. We are both happy to use units outside the SI. I think a mass quantity should be indicated with a unit of dimension mass, and a mass-to-charge quantity should be indicated with a unit of dimension mass/charge. Or, as the IUPAC green book puts it: ℚ = {ℚ}[ℚ]. ℚ and [ℚ] have the same dimension since {ℚ} is a numerical factor.
These are 10 disagreements in a relatively short text. In some of those you are so obviously wrong (1 and 2) that it really raises the question whether you are a qualified as an arbitrator in this case. Then, also, a lot of this current dispute seems to come from the unfortunate fact that chemists still use terminology that contradict the modern consensus of all fields of science and commerce and trade. This, combined with the fact that most analytical chemists seem to have no clue or interest in metrology as well as very limited knowledge of math, is a deadly mixture. Therefore I would really have preferred a metrologist or a physicist as arbitrator. However, my experience with physical chemists so far is that they are extremely bright and that they understand and learn very quickly. Since this arbitration is really about an obvious issue, I am leaning towards accepting the risk and you as arbitrator.
Before I do that, I have just two questions:
1 Are you really a physical chemist?
2 What is your answer to my 10 points ?
Kehrli (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be frank with you, you don't have much choice as to my "qualifications" in the matter. It was, after all, yourself who requested that I comment at the arbitration request. I am not an arbitrator, but I am willing to mediate in the matter if both sides accept that. If not, I shall simply take the case back to ArbCom saying that I tried to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem, but failed. Don't have any doubts about that, it wouldn't be the first time I've done it. I've given you brief answers to your ten points above, and on at least two of them you will need to give some ground if there is to be a resolution of this dispute.
But, before you accuse me of shying away from your second to last question, my PhD is in inorganic chemistry, homogeneous catalysis to be specific, but my latest scientific paper was submitted (still with the reviewers) to Metrologia: it touches on the metrological consequences of the microscopic quantization of Q, as it happens, although that is not its main thrust. So, do you want to thrash this out among scientists, or would you prefer to waste your time with ArbCom? Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"... quantization of Q"? I really like that. You actually agree that Q is quantized. Ok, let's thrash this out. You are right, this will be much more fun than ArbCom Kehrli (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sounds like a yes? The case is here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-11-21/Kendrick_mass - if you still have the time and inclination to mediate, Physchim62. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry? Who exactly has been "violated" [3]?  Giacomo  19:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Find a WP:RS for all that and you can post it; until then it's a clear WP:BLP violation. Physchim62 (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it was adding drivel to drivel. The page has been founded 24/48 hours too early.  Giacomo  20:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's already an article on this topic: Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In which case, the second article should be included within the deltion discussion, as they obviously cover exactly the same material! As for the title, that can be fixed later. Physchim62 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The other article was created first. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Didn't come up when I searched to create mine. Still, the only thing were actually arguing about (now that the gratuitous BLP violation has been removed) is the title; hardly worth a fight over, can be done with a move request once everything's died down. Physchim62 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We can't have both articles though. One of them's gotta be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Phew, thankfully somebody made the former into a re-direct to the latter. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman--esque?[edit]

Ciao! Just a quick note after I noticed your very early creation of Castellbisbal... Roman (Architecture) is something quite different than Romanesque architecture: the former is ancient (belonging to ancient Rome), the latter is medieval, without any connection to Rome in general. Let me know if you used the same convention elseqhere so I can correct. Ciao and good work!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Phnom Penh stampede in ITN[edit]

--Kslotte (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Did I? I didn't notice, but thanks anyway! Physchim62 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Vinod Mishra[edit]

I have no problem with you removing it from WP:ERRORS, it's stale now. But if you think that (a) a communist party source is in any way a reliable source for a communist politician; or that (b) an admin who acts upon that problem is pushing pov, you need to acquaint yourself more with core wikipedia policies. I'd suggest starting at WP:RS. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded to Mkativerata on his/her talk page. I think the behaviour shows a quite problematic pattern. Mkativerata should seek consensus and agreement with other editors, rather than impose his/her own personal preferences on the Main Page. Wikipedia is essentially a collective task, in which the process itself is of value. --Soman (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A rejection of a communist party source simply because it is a communist party source is about as huge a violation of WP:NPOV as I can imagine. It is also ridiculous, as "western" sources use the same "communist" news agencies as Wikipedia does. Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has tried to reject articles in this way twice now in little over 24 hours, I will not tolerate a third time. Physchim62 (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that the two communist issues within 24 hours is co-incidental. I would be just as strict if David Cameron's biography was reliant on this source. You're also misrepresenting the reason for pulling this article. It's not simply because it is a communist party source. It is because it was a source (a) from a Communist Party publication; (b) about a member of the party; (c) that was obviously biased because, among other things, it described the subject as "dearest". Perhaps you can set aside your assumptions of bad-faith POV-pushing for a while? I can accept questions about whether I chose a correct course of administrative action in the circumstances, but assumptions of bad faith and POV-pushing are, suprisingly to me, rather hurtful. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-Roman Re-directs and DABs[edit]

Ever since you were involved in the preliminary discussion on Non-Roman characters in article titles, there has been a separate proposal regarding the usage of Non-Roman characters in re-directs and DABs, and you may be interested in joining the discussions on this page. Your input will be appreciated. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark[edit]

This blatant accusation of RegentsPark without any basis of evidence, one of the respected users in Indian wiki project (other than may be for YogeshKandke) shows you have not taken any effort to really understand the editors and issues clearly. The use of vandal template for User:YellowMonkey is also quite interesting. --CarTick (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CarTick. Quite unnecessary - Amog | Talkcontribs 05:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Erm, I'm not accusing RegentsPark of anything... (and the unnecessary use of {{vandal}} was corrected here) Physchim62 (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{userlinks}} produces the same as {{vandal}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Tongan general election, 2010[edit]

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Trollishness[edit]

For someone who claims to not want to feed the trolls, I thought this was a very trollish response. The OP was just trying to indicate they wanted references to actual studies, not off-the-cuff opinions. Saying "you'll get what you get" is really not contributing. If you don't have anything useful to say about a topic, please just refrain from posting on it. I have removed the comment in question. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The same editor has made the same request before. I find it disrespectful of the contributors at the Reference Desk. It assumes, for example, that the questioner has considered all the possible factors concerning the question, and merely needs someone to find articles for them; yet if the questioner were capable of knowing they had considered all the factors, they would know where to find the articles for themselves. Physchim62 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a perfectly respectable request that people refrain from just posting the first thing that comes to their head on a topic in which many people have strong but non-scientific opinions. You cannot pretend this is not actually a problem at the Reference Desk, despite its name. Even in that thread, the first answer was someone saying, "oh, there could never be a scientific study on this because you couldn't define the end properties to a satisfactory degree," which is clearly false, as five seconds of Google Scholar searching would indicate. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

YM Arb case[edit]

Hi Physchim62. I noticed your edit and diff insertion and realized that my clarification was probably not procedurally correct and perhaps put you in an awkward position. So, I rephrased it as a response to you. Sorry about that. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Put me in an awkward position" is going a bit far! It's just that I had chosen to use a direct quote which was no longer a direct quote: as I was just about to go to bed, I thought that adding the diff was the quickest way of fixing it. I think you get you point across clearer with your new wording – not that I agree with you, but that's another matter! Physchim62 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I've struck my reply on the arbitration request, not out of any disrespect to yourself but simply because I think it only repeats points I've made earlier in my statement. As you're obviously aware of those points (and disagree with them), it doesn't really serve any purpose addressing them to you "personally"! Feel free to strike or delete your response to me on the same basis, should you so wish. Physchim62 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Nah. I'll leave it. My experience with arbcom cases is that they are timesinks of a close to infinite magnitude. The less I have to deal with them, the happier I am. I'm not going back there unless absolutely necessary! --RegentsPark (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend[edit]

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC[edit]

I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page.TimothyRias (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom e-mail[edit]

I tried to e-mail to the following arbcom-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org, but the system will not allow it. What I am doing wrong ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of language[edit]

Your use of the term "unconstructive" is entirely too confrontational, unnecessary, and subjective (IMHO, subjectively wrong). Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Henry IV of France[edit]

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Template:Chemical structure verified[edit]

Hi Physchim62. Please participate in the discussion Commons:Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Template:Molecule. --Leyo 16:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The future use of your template and the redundancy with Commons:Template:Molecule is discussed. --Leyo 15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Patent-EU[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Patent-EU has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

time to sort out the icesave / debt repayment / loan agreement dispute finally[edit]

hey there, this is just a bulk message inviting you to re-think the topic as was discussed more than 6 months ago and is still unresolved. feel free to jump here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Time_to_settle_the_title_dispute.3F and help figure out how we can end this conclusively this time. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Borane structures[edit]

Hi, As well as being a Wikipedian, I'm also a curator/employee at ChemSpider and have responded to some of your recent feedback at ChemSpider.org. I believe that I have managed to work out how to solve many of the issues that you experienced with borane compounds. I will go back and try and resolve all of the issues that you pointed out. As a start I have created a record for pentaborane (and amended the WP page). When you view the ChemSpider record the strucuture representation will appear incorrect if you are logged in (due to a bug) but you can see the correct image by either using the Zoom option or logging out.

If you have any questions or comments feel free to get in touch -- The chemistds (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd guessed you were the same person at both sites! I'll have a look at your borane fix: I've got a couple of ideas myself if the problem still isn't solved. It is perfectly possible to generate MOLfiles and InChIs for polyhedral boranes – it's just a connection table, after all – but I don't know if the ChemSpider software will handle them correctly. Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! That works for decaborane at least, so I assume that the same fix will work for the others. I am defining "work" as generating the same InChI as the NIST Chemistry Webbook: I have verified the NIST molfiles and they are valid. Unfortunately also under copyright, but I have some free molfiles constructed on the same principles which I shall try to upload when I get a moment. Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Amount of substance 2.0[edit]

Hi,

I am an editor of the article Amount of substance. We have corresponded previously with regard to this article, e.g. here.

After a substantial hiatus, I took a look at the text of Amount of substance. I see that a major change occurred with your edit of 16 February 2010, and that the article has remained substantially the same since then. The comment accompanying your change was “This seems like a quicker fix,” presumably in response to the comment from the previous editor. But that editor merely complained about the then-current lead paragraph. All that he or she did was to move the previous lead paragraph to a new “Overview” section and write a new, much shorter lead paragraph; in particular, that edit deleted nothing. Your edit, on the other hand, deleted more than half of the previous version of the article—its length went from 53,762 bytes to 22,195 bytes.

Did you really mean to cut out that much? If you indeed did mean to do it, could you please explain why, and in particular explain why you deleted from the article all mention of the following topics:

(1) the fact that 1 mol of identical atoms has the same mass in grams as the atomic weight of the atomic species in question (and similarly for molecules and their relative molecular mass);
(2) the explanation of this fact;
(3) the analogy with the “standard batch size”;
(4) the discussion of the possible misconceptions to which the analogy with the “standard batch size” could lead;
(5) the fact that Avogadro constant is a measured quantity, with an associated measurement uncertainty;
(6) the reason why the amount-of-substance is measured in terms of the number of entities rather than in terms of mass or volume;
(7) the reason why, in appropriate contexts, the amount-of-substance concept is to be preferred to using the absolute numbers of entities.

Thank you, and I'm looking forward to your response. Reuqr (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I basically removed that material because I found it rambling, more akin to a student textbook (and hence Wikibooks) than an encyclopedic article. To answer your specific points, with reference to the diff:
(1) I can't find your statement in the previous version, but it is dimensionally incorrect. Atomic weights are dimensionless; molar masses have the dimension M/N
(2) The "explanation" of this fact is that the molar mass constant has the defined value of 1 g/mol in SI units; I can't find this anywhere in the material deleted.
(3) A common, but ultimately unhelpful analogy; see (6)
(4) Why even introduce "batch size" when you already know that it will lead to misconceptions?
(5) Treated already at the article Avogadro constant
(6) Amount of substance cannot be measured in terms of number of entities! That is the fundamental confusion here. We tell students that amount of substance is a "standard batch size", but that we can't count the number of items in a batch! To take the molar mass situation, amount of substance is mass divided by molar mass; that is, mass of the pure sample divided by the relative mass of the entity on a standard scale, with an extra factor added in (the 'famous' molar mass constant) to ensure dimensional homogeneity. There are other ways of measuring amount of substance, but counting atoms or molecules ain't one of them whereas measurement by mass is by far the most common.
(7) Amount of substance was being measured for more than a hundred years before the absolute number of entities was known: that is an example of its utility! It is never appropriate, in metrological terms, to translate amount of substance measurements into counts of entities, or vice versa. If you measure amount of substance, you should say that; if you count entities, you should say that: they are different kinds of quantities.
Physchim62 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply.

Before we get to discussing any actual specific statements, I suggest we try to see if we are on the same page about what this article should be like. Here is what I think: among other things, this article should address common misconceptions and confusions, something it doesn't do in its present form. I'm saying this because I could imagine someone objecting to this, on the grounds that it is not really encyclopedic to do so. What I'm saying is that I would prefer to err on the side of perhaps being less encyclopedic and more pedagogical, especially if the result is progress in eliminating widespread and persistent confusions. I think the warrant to err on the side of being more, not less, pedagogical is especially strong in the case of an article such as this one, because I'm pretty sure (though I can point to no study as a reference) that the most numerous readers of this particular article will be precisely high school and college students who got confused in their chemistry class. (Of course, one can still go overboard in being pedagogical, which is why it's a good thing there are multiple editors.)

For example, as you pointed out, invocations of the standard batch size concept are quite common; I would add that even reputable sources sometimes use it. It follows that many readers of the Wikipedia article will encounter the standard batch size concept, either before or after reading the Wikipedia article. Either way, this concept and the associated misconceptions are already out there in the world. Here at Wikipedia, we can't erase the presence of this concept in the wider world, but we can do something to help erase the misconceptions to which it may lead. Thus, I think this article should acknowledge that this standard batch size concept exists, indeed that it is common, and then proceed to clarify what is and isn't right about that concept. (Incidentally, the preceding is also my answer to your question, Why even introduce "batch size" when you already know that it will lead to misconceptions?)

Similarly, we do indeed, as you say, confuse students by telling them that the amount of substance is a "standard batch size", but that we can't count the number of items in a batch. I think that this article is a nice place to clarify these issues, perhaps in language that is not too far off from what you just said in reply to my issue (6). After all, isn't Wikipedia these days one of the first places a confused student may turn to for help?

As yet another example of a common misconception, many do not realize the truth of what you said in the first sentence of your reply to my issue (7), namely, that the amount of substance was being measured for more than a hundred years before the absolute number of entities was known. I think that this article is a nice place to make this truth more widely appreciated.

The article in its present form does not include any discussion of these issues. I think that the article should include discussions of these issues, as well as of any other stubborn misconceptions. Can we agree on that basic point? Can we agree that the article should not simply state the official definition, and pretty much just leave it at that—which is more or less the state of the article right now? Reuqr (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Service award level[edit]

Herostratus (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level[edit]

Herostratus (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

French/English terminology[edit]

Do you know "la représentation de Cram"? It's on fr.wiki, but what would it be called in English? Cram projection? Cram structure? Cram notation? DS (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's one of those cases where francophone chemists have decided to name something that anglophone chemists don't consider even needs a name! "Cram projection" would be the obvious translation, but that term isn't actually used in English (see, e.g., doi:10.1351/pac200678101897). If you want a more natural translation, I'd go for "stereochemical representation" or something like that. Physchim62 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just happened to see this discussion on my watchlist... I think Natta projection might be same concept. But, for what it's worth, in ~20 years of doing organic chemistry and using these types of representations almost daily, I have never once heard them referred to as either "Cram projections" or "Natta projections". -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The "official" (IUPAC) term for a Natta projection seems to be a "zig-zag projection" (see doi:10.1351/pac199668122193, last page). I have heard the term représentation de Cram, but only in France. It just seems too ubiquitous to actually need a name! Physchim62 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:USAF-AUX listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:USAF-AUX. Since you had some involvement with the Template:USAF-AUX redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Rebooting the renaming discussion[edit]

You were previously involved. Please see.

Proposed Image Deletion[edit]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Training and Development Agency for Schools[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Training and Development Agency for Schools requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ecb[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Ecb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Leyo 14:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion[edit]

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:EU regulation[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:EU regulation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

MSDS Links in Infoboxes Re: ICSC vs. Chemical suppliers[edit]

Added this to Infobox discussion Infobox Talk Page MSDS Section: "We had an awesome ad-hoc thing going with linking to oxford's MSDS service, but as of Dec 2011, that service has been discontinued (liability?)... I am loathe to link to chemical suppliers, but I have been linking infoboxes as I come across them generally to sciencelab.com due tot he comprehensive nature of those MSDS files which comes close to that of the oxford ones. The ICSC cards are good, but they don't function quite like standard MSDS, I feel. Is there perhaps a more permanent resource than chemical supplier sites that we can begin to move the oxford links to?"

Perhaps you have some input? As an undergrad student, I must admit some personal interest in having comprehensive and well laid-out MSDS, but I am unsure of how "international" ICSCs are. Cheers Fourloves 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Physchim62. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

IUPAC polymer definitions[edit]

Hi PC, long time no see! Anyway, you may be interested in this post. Have you been talking with the polymer people at all? Regards, Walkerma (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP Chemicals in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chemicals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Helping out validating chemicals[edit]

Hi PC -- I am a chemical engineer (Master's), and I'm wondering how I could help validate chemical data on the Wikipedia. Please let me know!

Thanks, Paolo --Paolodm (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

3rd opinion request[edit]

There is a dispute at Talk:David_Johnston#Order regarding what titles are best for subsections. I think we need a third opinion. I found you edited the page a bunch a few times and you are an experienced editor. One note: User:Miesianiacal has done an exceptionally large percent of edits on this page and is now in an WP:EDITWAR over another point on the same page. Thanks for your help. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 07:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Physchim62! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know[edit]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:H-phrases/doc[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:H-phrases/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Leyo 16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

CAT:Chem listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CAT:Chem. Since you had some involvement with the CAT:Chem redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)