User talk:Stone

Archives

Awards

I, Clockwork Soul, hereby award you with the EMC² Barnstar for all of the time and effort that you put into helping to raise caffeine to featured article status! – Clockwork Soul 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, saving the Copper(II) fluoride article from deletion! In recognition of how dramatically it's improved since you started work on it, I award you this :) riana_dzasta 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transurane

Hallo Stone,t

falls Du auch in der Deutschen Wikipedia unterwegs bist, so wären Deine Beiträge auch dort willkommen. Von mir wurden de:Americium, de:Curium, de:Berkelium und de:Californium deutlich erweitert. Inzwischen ist Berkelium "lesenswert", Curium "exzellent", Americium wird in Kürze "lesenswert", Californium steht im Review und dies möchte ich bis "exzellent" durchbringen. Schau mal in de:WP:RC vorbei. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaker

Harald, I noticed a comment on Sandy Georgia's page about Niobium. I could help with the English, as I know some German and have also revised papers written by Italians. Petergans (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to help, but I'm going away for a winter break tomorrow, so it won't be before 29 Dec. Petergans (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hochberg

Hi stone, I was curious if you could tell me what you think of my justification for the Michael Hochberg article (see the discussion). I am a first time wikipedian and I am not sure what is appropriate and what is not

thanks

Vuerqex

Do you speak German? Vuerqex (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Ja warum? --Stone (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysprosium

Thanks for updating the wikiproject box with the new article status. I missed that while updating the templates and listing the article as a good article. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also updated the Achievements list on the Elements Project page.--Stone (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Adjou Moumouni

Do you have access to the JSTOR article and, if so, could you e-mail it to me? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have to have a look tomorrow!--Stone (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Army Equipment

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Army Equipment, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Army Equipment is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Army Equipment, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vanadium

I have finished my revision of vanadium. I have omitted things that I could not understand. To re-introduce that stuff, it might be helpful if you could supply me with a well-written German original and your attempt at translation, via e-mail at peter dot gans at hyperquad dot co dot uk. Apart from that, I don't want to work any more on this article. It distresses me that so many errors were introduced in the compounds section after I had worked on it originally. This is WP at its worst when every Tom, Dick or Harry with a smattering of knowledge thinks that he/she can improve an article, when in fact he just degrades it. Petergans (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN? My attitude is strongly coloured by experience with acid dissociation constant which, despite huge effort by many people, was not promoted at FAC wp:Featured_article_candidates/Acid_dissociation_constant/archive2. This has left me with the feeling that it is not worth the effort to go for special status of any kind, mainly because the process may involve being subjected to "ignorant" comments by non-specialists, which wastes a lot of everybody's time.

The article as it stands is certainly of good quality, but I would not want to be involved in the GAN process. For me, it is enough that I can help improve the quality of articles whose chemistry I know something about. Petergans (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vergleicht es bitte auch mit dem bereits exzellenten Artikel de:Vanadium. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Werde ich machen, habe auch schon einiges von da übernommen!--Stone (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scandium

Please see my new questions on the GA review and the talk page. Overall it's great work, and worthy of the plus sign in a green circle. Congratulations on thorough research and clear presentation. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun reviewing this article but there was an edit conflict with you. Please don't edit again today as I have made a bit of a mess which needs to be cleaned up first. Petergans (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completed Petergans (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I added information about Scandium, and you said it needed to be from a reliable source. Well I am a Scandium trader, and most of the world's Scandium is in strategic stockpiles. If you delete my contribution, people will not be able to know these things! Have you ever handled large quantities of metallic Scandium? I bet the kids and students who read your article don't. (Its about $5000.kg). I think Scandium could be used in medical prosthetics, for example. It is surely a good idea to let people know more about the metal, given how little information is available. rgds Inhwiki

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Stone (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitarbeit bei de:WP:RC ?

Hallo, hast Du Lust, Dich auch auf der deutschen WP zu beteiligen? de:Benutzer:Stone ist noch frei, so dass man daraus einen SUL-Account machen kann. JWBE benutze ich gleichfalls als SUL-Account. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Zinc Production 2006.svg

Could you make the key much, much larger for this image? There seems to be room for a key that is as tall as the image if the map is moved to the right. As is, it can't be read when thumbnailed. If you don't have time, I'll probably get around to it. Thanks. :) --mav (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mav, I will most likely do it on the weekend, the real life put me on a preliminary design review and a second meeting far from home for the whole week.--Stone (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the file.--18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it is much easier to read now. :) --mav (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stumped on this page] but I cannot really understand it. Since it seems like a good overview, can you quickly check it to see weather we missed anything major? Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vanadium

It looks better. I will continue the conversation at Talk:Vanadium/GA1 to centralize the discussion. Gary King (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dapsone

Hi there

I only know a little German, so I was wondering if you could help me with some translation. The first synthesis of dapsone is described in doi:10.1002/cber.190804102131.

From pages 2269-2270, this is what I understand of the synthesis:

4,4'-Dinitrodiphenyl sulfide was oxidized to the sulfone in a solution of potassium dichromate, glacial acetic acid, and sulfuric acid. (next page) The sulfone was reduced with tin and concentrated hydrochloric acid, and the free base was obtained by treatment with an alkali.

Did I get anything wrong? If not, I"ll put it into the Dapsone article? Thanks for your help! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I will read it on Monday, I have no access from at home. Sorry. --Stone (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recrystallisation from acetic acid, but this is only the cleaning step. You got what is written there!--Stone (talk)

That's great, thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V/Pt

Re: V - my pleasure. I'm currently working on Pt and related articles. When you have a bit of time, perhaps you can take a look too. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Stone. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re:zinc

You mean stuff we should not include? Anyways, which stuff are you referring to? Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We should include some of the stuff, because it looks interesting. I will try to find refernces for it and and than I will add it.--Stone (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

chromium

Gutentag Stone

First of all, I cannot even find the version of the article as edited by myself. Did you do something with so that it cannot be retrieved anymore?

You changed the sentence from:

Trivalent chromium (Cr(III) or Cr³⁺) is required in trace amounts for sugar metabolism in humans (Glucose Tolerance Factor) and its deficiency may cause a disease called chromium deficiency. In contrast, hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI) or Cr⁶⁺) is very toxic and mutagenic when inhaled.

to

Trivalent chromium (Cr(III) or Cr³⁺) is required in trace amounts for sugar and lipid metabolism in humans and its deficiency may cause a disease called chromium deficiency. In contrast, hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI) or Cr⁶⁺) is very toxic and mutagenic when inhaled.

and this was the only edit you did. I am not an admin so changing the file history is not within my posibilities.

Secondly, I would like to see my statement about GTF returned. So redo that!

Your edit errased the Glucose Tolerance Factor GTF from the article. If you want to change it. do it if it is well referenced I have no problem with it.

Thirdly, why did you replace my ref. from a scientific journal with something from a patent office. Redo my ref. as well!

There was no ref for GTF the patent ref goes to another line In medicine, as a dietary supplement or slimming aid, usually as chromium(III) chloride, chromium(III) picolinate, chromium(III) polynicotinate or as an amino acid chelate, such as chromium(III) D-phenylalanine.[14]

Mit Hochachtung Haddendaddendoedenda (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you did not save your edit? I found no hint of any other edit, so if you want and it is possible for you you can redo your edits? --Stone (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your recognition of my work on Chromium. I was wondering why you deleted that sentence (last edit). Is there anyway to salvage the sentence?68.148.145.190 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought The history of chromium dates back thousands of years is not necessary because the next sentence starts with 3rd century BC basically making clear that this is 2.3 thousand years ago.--Stone (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree with you completely, but I meant this edit: [1].68.148.145.190 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symposium: FAC and the sciences

Your input is requested, either at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium or at the subpage where the effort will begin... Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tantalum

I have passed the GA for Tantalum. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ExoMars

Thank you for the message. I admit that I do not know the current status of the mission, and assumed that the ESA web site was more accurate and updated than BBC News. Thank you for the correction. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No C-Class in WP:Chem

Hi Stone, you have re-assessed a few articles in WP:Chem to C-Class. However, a gentle reminder: for historical reasons, there is no C-Class in WP:Chem, so I have re-assessed these articles to B. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry! I was assuming that this is a wiki wide thing to have C.Some of them might be mor Start than B then.--Stone (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history of WP assessment is very interesting, at least I think so. Several years ago, it was an invention that we in the Chemicals Wikiproject developed for our own worklist articles (all 382 of them). Martin Walker was then active in the starting WP1.0 project, and took the successful grading scheme to a wider scope. Later, because FA was enormously difficult, another formal procedure was invented: GA, which nowadays tends to be as high-level oriented as FA, and for some (most?) wikiprojects the C-class was injected into the scheme (but not in WP:Chem, of course, not necessary for us). And then a recent C-Class was invented for people who thought it difficult to grade articles, and again we don't need that for WP:Chem. The best we can do is not spent time in assessing and reassessing articles, but in improving them. Success with our appreciated work. PS. I assessed all five articles for their true value; I didn't revert. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The story with A-Class and its slow disaperance is also funny, but I had the Unassessed and Unknown-importance chemistry article in my aim and tried to get the number from 1900 to below 1000 which I have to do a few more, and than I go back to Chromium and Mercury, because making articles better is the task than assessing but sometimes it is fun to bring order to the chaos.--Stone (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! S B H arris 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GAN Zinc oxide

Dear Stone, sorry for it took me so long to fix the ZnO page. Usually, I react much faster. I re-wrote the industrial production, added the history section and added minor fixes to the properties and applications. I'm not sure about your comments on unbalanced lead - it is actually dominated by real applications and just mentions future prospects. Please note that in the optoelectronics world, ZnO is perhaps the most popular (non-carbon) material nowadays; the optoelectronic applications of ZnO are generally important (LEDs and lasers were already produced, at least in the lab) and are one step short of commercialization. It is not superfluous to mention them. Could you please re-evaluate the article. Thank you. NIMSoffice (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wellman-Lord Process

Hi, Stone. I proposed to merge the Wellman-Lord Process into the Flue gas desulfurization article. You could discuss this here Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: yttrium borides

I copied that statement (water reactivity of YB6) without thinking. Either it was previously copied from yttrium carbide to YB6 safety datasheets (yttrium carbide does react with water) or the mistake is in the reaction products (hydrocarbons). I shall ask a specialist tomorrow. Thank you for careful reading ! NIMSoffice (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I got it from the new article bot User:AlexNewArtBot/ChemistrySearchResult and I look at most of the new chemistry articles. --Stone (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: I have confirmed that most safety datasheets on yttrium boride, which you can read on the internet, apparently copied info on water reactivity from yttrium carbide. Yttrium carbide does strongly reacts with water, but yttrium borides do not react at all. One more example on importance of critical reading. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me it looks like the people doing the MSDS have only a limited knowledge and put everything in which might save the company form being sued because of a lacking info. I was reading the safety instructions on a LiF bottle last week and it said you should use .... if the stuff ignites. So it must be flamable, but under what conditions?--Stone (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally found your reply to my comment. A month after you wrote it :) LiF is definitely not flammable. I worked with LiF crystals as spectroscopist (they are used as IR and UV windows and prisms). I think, here again, some guy copied MSDS info from Li to LiF, to be on the safe side .. NIMSoffice (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invitation and request

Hi Stone, I notice you are among the most recent updaters of importance ratings for some articles within Wikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage Sites. I would like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites, a new wikiproject which has a great set of members but which I believe lacks, so far, any wp:WHS representation. Please browse and consider.

Whether or not you are interested in that, I wonder if you could please help out in a discussion about wp:WHS's importance ratings. I would appreciate very much if you could chime in and offer your thoughts, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic Sites/Assessment#Importance tagging. Thanks! doncram (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc ready for FAC?

Do you think zinc is ready for FAC? If so, do you want to be a co-nominator? --mav (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Petergans pointed out that the chemistry section needs a little work, but I think this is no show stoper. I will be glad to help as co-nominator. --Stone (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Karl James Jalkanen

Hello, Stone. You have new messages at Talk:Karl James Jalkanen.
Message added 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Molybdenum

Hey mate. I'm a bit busy trying to squeeze gamma-ray burst through FAC before I go back home for summer. When I do go home, I'll have access to some good elements resources, including Nature's Building Blocks, so I'd be happy to help then. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GA nomination of Chromium

I have brushed up the writing and refs of that article and put my comments on the talk page. The level is certainly sufficient for GA and the article can go further to FA. However, before that, writing should be checked again, because I found lots of style inaccuracies within an hour, which I do not find in FAs. best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Actinium vandalism

A user added "I love cora mae fletcher", and I was trying to delete it. I suspect that a user is trying to use Wikipedia as a medium to confess/propose, which is inappropriate for this site. Vandalism of periodic elements is not appreciated.149.142.243.120 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

the production images such as [2] don't really need to include the entire scale. I think if you chop off the top part when it is the case (such as for zinc one chop off over 50%) there will be more space and the scale can be zoomed in a little bit. Nergaal (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the gas porosity (casting) article! You snuck that in right under my own nose. Wizard191 (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are right

I didn't know (but could have guessed) that one should not add his/her own discoveries on WP (on the other hand, only the authors can give the most in-depth account of their work - but the balance between self-promotion and scientific correctness is dangerous). Although I believe the work I added on sodium is a major advance, it is really better that the community votes on this. The text is ready (so, no one has to do the work:-). so, you are right - and for that I thank you. Aoganov (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov[reply]

curiosity

Dear Harald,

You've mentioned that the other party, upon being contacted by you, told you a story of boron discovery that's 100% different from what I presented. You've probably seen the evidence that we give (there is actually more that we can say). But I wonder what the other party told you - it's curiosity, but also the need to know what exactly we need to refute. Could you please tell me - best of all, by email - what are their claims? Do they deny that they had our paper since 9 December 2006? I'd really appreciate if you can contact me.

P.S. There are many things that I didn't mention on the WP-page... For instance, Filinchuk was my best friend (he was my witness at my wedding) and that's why I trusted him and sent him my paper before publication. Or, that Dubrovinskaia and Dubrovinsky saw experimental results of Solozhenko (which obtained already in 2004 - and again, Solozhenko was their friend). They heard that there is a new phase and, secretly from Solozhenko, started working on it. Or maybe I should mention that several of Dubrovinsky's coauthors were present at our talk in August 2008 in Japan - and abstract of that lecture was actually published in a good journal, Acta Cryst., but Dubrovinsky et al. ignored citing it. There are so many wrongs on their side that I am puzzled how they can defend their position.

P.P.S. Please contact me by email - or just give me a call. Thanks a lot! Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that without a credible source (book, journal or credible web site) the whole thing is word against word and for this wikipedia is the wrong place. --Stone (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and this is why I made a website that presents DOCUMENTS -

here http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/false-claims

or here:

http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/filinchukmisconduct

We also have a detailed abstract at a major conference (attended also by the other party - as can be easily proven), published in a high-level journal (Acta Cryst). They could have cited this, but never did so.

I am confident that the other party can only say rubbish, but will have no documentary support. Sites like Wikipedia may help to settle this conflict just by showing who has evidence and who does not. I suggest to wait till they get back.

BTW, I understood from your comment that you have already got a reply from them (you mentioned their story being 100% different)?

Aoganov (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov[reply]

Not to cite others is not nice and the codex of scientist condems it, but you are not obliged to cite somebody. Not to cite conference abstracts and publications in press is done by some people, because they are hard to get. The problem is that the google site could be fabricated and the fear of publishing informations which have no credible source forces wikipedia to go for a high standart when it comes to sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a good place to start. But the google site does not meet that standart.--Stone (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]