User talk:Physchim62

The large wet haddock, which keeps a eye on Physchim62.

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

This editor is a Labutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, and Sticky Note.

The practical realisation of the above

Message from PC

Happy New Year to all and sundry! Physchim62 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerium(IV) oxide

Hi Physchim62, thanks for the great work on Cerium(IV) oxide, can you make the green text black ? (Color_blindness#Classification_of_color_deficiencies, not everybody is able to read them. Cheers Mion (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Or another color that works :-)Mion (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't change the colour myself, as it's coded into a protected template. However it's only experimental, so I shall definitely try to get it changed – I don't like it myself, as it is fairly meaningless to most readers! It distinguishes CAS numbers which have been verified by the Chemical Abstracts Service, and there must be a clearer way to do that. Physchim62 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoi Physchim62, one week past, and so far no better solution popped up, but if I find one i'll let you know. Cheers Mion (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As a temporary move, I've darkened the shade used on the template, so that Daltonians should see it as 'bold grey' instead of 'bright nothing'. Another option is to use a toolserver link to convey the information to editors (and give better service to our readers) while the validation project is going on. As the original bright-green text had been in place since last October, I don't see that our attempts to change practices are particularly slow. Physchim62 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all -:), Cheers Mion (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Icesave Dispute

Hi, you have asked me for a backup on my edit in the Icesave Dispute wiki. Here you can find the article from De Telegraaf: http://www.telegraaf.nl/overgeld/rubriek/sparen/article2771885.ece Henwen168 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that backs up your edit. Amazing bureaucracy! I'll put your comments back in, with the reference. Best Nieuw Jaar! Physchim62 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pointless?

I believe that there is defintely a point for an extended periodic table article, or at least a merger with the main article. I see no merit in the idea of complete deletion. Although i also see no point in having the table filled with as-of-yet undiscovered elements.98.108.79.82 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case, why include the g-block (the "extension" in the extended periodic table) when none of its members have yet been discovered? The supposed electron configurations in the 'article' are also incorrect: nature isn't as neat as that! Physchim62 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Next prime minister

As you may already know, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is widely expected to become the next prime minister. Haukur (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, seems more and more likely. I've just seen the news about the official negotiations between the SDA and the Red-Greens. Still I'm not feeling very inspired at the moment, I think I'll have lunch before writing anything ;) Physchim62 (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And on the "haha, expert on fish pathology" front the new finance minister will likely be a geologist and the new prime minister a stewardess. Haukur (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that means the new government is looking for "rock-solid" foundations to the economy, and not a sign that Iceland is heading back to the Stone Age ;) Who is the candidate for what must be one of the worst jobs in European politics at minute? Physchim62 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The final decision probably hasn't been made but it is persistently rumored that Steingrímur J. Sigfússon will get that particularly delicious piece of the mud pie. It's also traditional for the leftmost party (i.e. the Socialist party and its descendants) to get the finance ministry on the (relatively rare) occasion that it makes it into government. There has always been a large rift between the leftmost party and the other parties on foreign policy issues, making it challenging to come up with a (non-kamikaze) plan where they hold the foreign ministry. Haukur (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'd better clean up his biography as well then, although Jóhanna's is more urgent for the minute! Physchim62 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

She definitely is. The lesbian thing seems to have some legs abroad (though it's not at all what she's known for over here). It would be great if you could work in her "my time will come" comment - people who know just one thing about her here will know that line.

And yes, geology is good for a few puns. Haukur (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great work so far. Some Gallup popularity statistics here: [1] She was also by far the most popular minister back in 1994 ("Jóhanna bar ávallt höfuð og herðar yfir aðra ráðherra í mælingum Gallups um ánægju með störf ráðherranna").[2] Haukur (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir

On 1 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Heilög Jóhanna

The Beeb manages to get the "Saint Jóhanna" thing wrong.[3] It's not an affectionate nickname used by her supporters - it's mostly a barb used by her opponents. Comparing her with St. Joan of Arc (Icel. Heilög Jóhanna af Örk) is intended to cast her as a naive fanatic, unlike the cunning and realistic "art of the possible" types in the other camps. Now, as it turns out, the reason "her time has come" now is that the public has turned very sour indeed on the cunning plotters among the politicians. Suspicions of corruption and scheming are rampant. The mood is exactly right for a person who, whatever her faults, is widely believed to be incorruptible and completely dedicated to public service. It will be interesting to see how she'll handle the compromises inherent in the job of PM and whether she can remain popular in what, to borrow a wording from you, must be one of the most difficult jobs in contemporary European politics. Haukur (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The real losers in all of this seem to be the Left-Greens. They get their bums on ministerial seats, but will they be able to cope with the disappointment of their grassroots supporters (and a section of the protesting public) that they can't just renegotiate the IMF loan or wipe out other debts with the stroke of a pen? Otherwise, the Alliance gets a new virginity under Jóhanna, and the Progressives seem to have played a stormer: their barely-out-of-adolescence leader gets to seem like the guy who guarantees the new coalition won't do anything too stupid, while avoiding any responsibility if things go wrong. Even the Liberals have managed to appear as responsible politicians, simply by keeping their mouths shut! (no doubt they are licking their lips at the chance to pick up some of the right-wing anti-EU Independence Party voters at the election) In the meantime, you can see which were the really unpopular ministers in the old government – they're the ones where their civil servants have already (on a Sunday evening!) replaced their CVs on the ministerial websites! Physchim62 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some good points there but it's still really hard to see how this will play out. I don't know about the Liberals - they're so fragmented and unfocused and really have not found their voice in this whole affair. But there's definitely a market for a right-wing party not responsible for plunging the country into the abyss so if they can get their act together they could probably do well. Maybe they need new leadership.

Some political cartoons here: [4] The one today is meant to show the worldview of the LGM. The one from November 26 is priceless, it shows Geir trying to balance Davíð and Ingibjörg and has him noting that he intends to keep doing this until the end of the four-year term. That this didn't work out was not entirely surprising. Haukur (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that Steingrímur had managed to make a bloody fool of himself in front of a (marginal, left-wing) Norwegian newspaper (and doubtless elsewhere) before even taking office. Personally, I like this one from 30 January: I might see if I can upload it under fair-use if St. Jóhanna's article is expanded a bit… Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Árni Matthiesen notes that 'the geologist takes over from the veterinarian' and everyone laughs." So THAT'S the problem: they all spent too much time reading Wikipedia and not enough time running the country! :P Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your contribution to the discussion at WT:PHARM:CAT. I replied to your comments. Thanks for your work on wikipedia, and I enjoyed reading your userpage. kilbad (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied... kilbad (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just trying to help! We've had (and have) similar questions in WP:CHEM, so I'm know some of the WP-technical difficulties, if I can put it that way! Physchim62 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mole (unit)

You have reverted my "good faith edit". Thus a referenced source is replaced by "The name is assumed to be derived from the word Molekül (molecule)." Surely an assumption is less encyclopedic?

According to the Oxford English dictionary, molecule is derived from the word 'mole' not the other way about (mole 1390, molecule (French) 1674):

1867 J. ATTFIELD Introd. Pharmaceutical Chem. 22 Equal volumes..must contain equal numbers of molecules (the diminutive of mole or mass (literally little masses). 1893 J. ATTFIELD Chem. (ed. 15) 465 Our conception of the structure or constitution of masses or moles of matter, or of particles or molecules.., are nothing more than conceptions.

Regards, Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Firstly let me apologise: I should have brought this up on the talkpage, but I got distracted and then forgot.

The derivation from "molecule" is more than just an assumption, it is the etymology given in most dictionaries (but see also below) and there is a plausible scientific reasoning behind it. The problem is that the word "molecule" is not being used in its current sense. Allow me to try to explain!

The word "molecule" itself undoubtedly comes from the Latin moles meaning a mass or an amount of matter. It was coined in Medieval Latin as molecula by Pierre Gassendi in the first half of the 17th century (probably 1649, but I haven't been able to confirm this yet), and makes its first appearance in French in 1674. It was originally used in something approaching its modern-day sense, linked to atomism. The etymology is obviously a coined diminutive of moles.

Dalton's atomic theory was obviously qualitatively different from that of the Epicurians, simply because it was (is) quantitative! In the early 19th century, you see the terms "atom" and "molecule" being used almost interchangeably. Avogadro himself used the French "molécule" in his 1811 paper expounding Avogadro's law, long before it became clear that the species he was referring to were "molecular" in the modern sense.

However, throughout most of the 19th century, there was a dispute between those who believed that atoms had a physical reality and those who felt that they were simply a useful heuristic (nobody disputed that the idea was very useful for practical chemistry). If you wish to see a snapshot of the dispute, you can find a translation of the proceedings of the Karlsruhe Congress (1860) here.

Before the dispute could be resolved, which wouldn't fully happen until the early years of the 20th century even though the number of 'doubters' grew ever smaller, the French chemist François-Marie Raoult made a number of investigations of what we now call "colligative properties". If you look at his 1882 paper on freezing-point depression, you find a completely different sense of the word "molecule". Now the word is being used in the sense that we would use "mole", so the molecular weight really is the mass of one of Raoult's "molecules". By this semantic trick, Raoult sidestepped the debate as to whether the tiny, unobservable ojects are real or not, and concentrated on what can be measured, placing himself in what we would now call the "anti-atomistic" camp.

A decade or so later, Ostwald included Raoult's techniques in his Textbook on Procedures for Physicochemical Measurements. The now-famous term "Mol" appears (without further explanation) exactly in the section where he discusses the determination of molecular weight by cryoscopy and ebullioscopy. Elsewhere, Ostwald uses the German Molekül in the same sense as Raoult, so the idea that "Mol" was meant as a self-evident abbreviation is far from fanciful. Merriam–Webster's proposes that the etymology is from Molekulargewicht, which is accurate by current diemnsional analysis but not (IMHO) by the standards of the late 19th century.

Finally, the citation you give for Attfield is very interesting. 1893 is the year in which Ostwald published the first edition of his textbook, and four years prior to the (next-)first English usage of mole that I've been able to find reference to. I don't think Attfield was actually using the term in its modern sense, as he was obviously an "anti-atomist" from the short quotation you supply. However it does indicate that the term as in use already, before Ostwald coined it. I'd be grateful if you could let me know where you found the citation from (OED 2nd edition?).

I hope this answers your query: if not, please don't hesitate to comment, either here or on Talk:Mole (unit). Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxides

I noticed that you are inserting an old ref (possibly the original one) to the X-ray structures of alkali metal oxides. I am not sure why you are doing this, since the current articles cite a comprehensive monograph (Wells Structural Inorganic). It was my understanding that such tertiary sources were preferred because they present more context and they minimize clutter. So what's your thinking. BTW, thanks for switching so many binary phase names to remove the Roman numerals. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHARM:CAT

Thank you very much for all your feedback regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. I responded to one of your comments regarding "Dermatological preparations." I also italicized our comments to make the draft a little easier to read... I hope that was ok. kilbad (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have posted an updated outline with level 2 ATC category names and would appreciate some feedback if you are available. kilbad (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

IMF slaves

You may (or may not) enjoy this little video: [5] Haukur (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note, there's a new poll out on 'trust' to public figures: [6] Jóhanna remains popular and, to a lesser extent, so does Katrín Jakobsdóttir. And the "apolitical experts" gambit seems to be paying off, Gylfi and Ragna are popular. Not a lot of love for the other politicians, especially embarrassing to see our supposedly "symbolic unity figure" of a president being so widely distrusted. Haukur (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad FAs

Maybe you should head down to WP:FAR and help weed out all the really bad ones. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Last time I proposed an FAR, I was told it was "out of process" because the article happened to be on the main page at the time: that doesn't really motivate me to do any more. But I will point out that your comment is typical of the current system: "you should work harder to make the system function properly". It is exactly that attitude that makes me wonder whether it is not the system itself which is at fault! Physchim62 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That is just a simple rule to prevent sometimes, a person who does it deliberately to create a scene, but also secondly for a good faith thing so that people don't accidentally make something that gets out of hand. A few days hardly changes anything, unless you are of the opinion that PR damage etc from a bad article is only relevant on TFAs. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have a way to make it harder for such shabby little soapbox pieces to make it onto the Main Page in the first place. After all, most articles get only an infinitesimal fraction of the attention of TFA, both from readers and from editors assessing them. Physchim62 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stopping, for now at least

I think I'm going to stop responding in the threads we have going. I don't see much new information being exchanged, and after we found out the extent to which we agree, neither of us seems to have succeeded in changing the other's mind about anything on which we disagree, so it seems a good time to take a break. Thanks for some interesting conversations, and good luck with your attempts to improve FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I quite understand. Thank you for your comments, which have certainly made me think my proposals through more thoroughly. Whether the proposal prospers or not, it has certainly caused a lot of debate, and that is not in itself a bad thing. I wish you happy editing, and I hope that you can find a way to share your obvious (and even your less obvious) skills with other editors who work in your area ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi PC, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, I hope you can present your views. I know you "unsigned" earlier, but the page is staying under the name you proposed - thanks for helping us through that. We made a mistake in how things were set up, but at this point I'd like just to get on with the discussion. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz FAC

I have resolved all of your comments. Ceranthor 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not yet you haven't! I've got some more for you! Physchim62 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Atorvastatin

Thank you for your support Maen. K. A. (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

rm vandalism

Whatever it is, it is not that. But I wonder if you (too) are being deliberately provocative? Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Suleman

I have washed my hands of that page. Wikipedia has run away from home and joined the circus as far as I can tell on this one. The argument that she should have a page is not utterly crazy, but most of the content on the current page has no place in an encyclopedia. I attempted to remove the names of her other children (i.e. the non-octuplets), and consensus was that they should remain. Good luck, I'm afraid that you're going up against the Octomom Fan Club. SDY (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

merger tag shenanigans

See, since I am suggesting it be merged that way, then it has been suggested. Anyone can suggest at anytime any merger they wish, and tag accordingly. Also, switching around the tags is going to direct people to the octuplets talk page, instead of the mother's talk page where discussion is already underway. Luckily, I have already left a note there in case someone got confused. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like my edits, you are free to consider them as opposition to your proposal. The AfD debate will stay active this time, that's for sure. Physchim62 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider it a big enough deal to bother edit warring with you over it, just pointing out that what you did was technically incorrect. Since you think the entire article should be deleted, I'm not sure why you are even participating in the merger discussion.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Capellades

De res! un cop que ja he acabat amb la provincia de Tarragona, ara estic fent escut de la provincia de Barcelona. Pots mirar el progrès aquí: Armorial municipal de Barcelona. Ens veiem! --Xavigivax (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Suleman AfD

You are now straying into the realm of personal attacks at this AfD. You have stated your position about fifteen times now, getting slightly less civil each time. Need I remind you that you were the one who wanted to re-open this debate and give it the full five days. Frankly, when I came to your user page I was shocked to discover you has been here so long and still had such a poor understanding of Wikipedia's most basic policies of user conduct. Just because the debate is not going in the direction you would prefer, it does not give you the right to start hurling personal insults around. I think it would be wise for you and Raeky to just back off and let the debate run it's course. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I make no apology for replying to your comments on the AfD debate as you and another user have been doing quite systematically to comments you disagree with. If you think I am attacking you personally, I am sorry, but the subjects of our articles deserve at least the same same respect as other Wikipedia editors, and it is exactly that respect towards the human subjects of these articles which I believe is lacking in your approach to their editing and in your general comments at the AfD debate. My own comments are an attempt to get you to realise the inconsistency of your own position. After all, would you really want an article of this type to be written about your mother – if not, what is your justification for writing it, because it would need to be a very, very good one. Physchim62 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

None of which makes it ok to behave as you have. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Physchim62. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Personally I am a bit concerned by [this diff, saying that another editor is "unhealthily obsessed" with someone probably doesn't help the discussion tone much. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-sequiturs are us

Latest poll shows significantly increased support for applying for EU membership and significantly decreased support for actually joining the EU.[7] Haukur (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two possible logical reasons for this that I can think of:

1. many people think that negotiations are inevitable but won't lead to a satisfactory result, so they say they're in favour of negotiations to get the issue of their backs;
2. membership negotiations might lead to the EEA agreement being revised, or at the very least help to avoid future misunderstandings such as the one over the Deposit Guarantee Directive, and so per se would be a good thing.

There's also the possibility of melatonin excess during the Icelandic winter… Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the discrepancy between the figures for "want to join" and "want to negotiate" merited a small piece in the Catalan press today! Physchim62 (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

I've been trying to keep up on the A-class discussions and like where the consensus is turning. While doing that, I realized just how much time and care you and Walkerma have been expending to try to keep the discussion on track and productive. Please keep up the great work! :) -- mav (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The credit is entirely Martin's! I'm far too proactive to be an effective moderator in this type of discussion. I have merely stepped in from time to time when Martin couldn't be around, attempting to provide syntheses as neutral as his are. My own opinion is that we've come a long way (and further than we got with the RfC), but that we are still far from consensus on some fairly major points. Speaking of which, I must go and think about an intervention on the question of "conflicting gradings", something I've been putting off for a couple of days now ;) Physchim62 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Metrification

Hi Physchim62, Thanks for your welcome note. I started "repairing" and writing articles several years go, but since the end of November 2008 I've been doing almost only WP:GAN reviews; and cleaning up after the vandals. We can get Metrification up to GA-level. Its a transparent process: I can either correct it or review it, I can't do both (well if someone else nominates it and I get to review it, which can't guaranteed, I can review it and correct it provide it is close to passing at GA-level). It was FA-level once, but I don't do (have not done) WP:FACs it seems like too much hard work. You have some interesting articles in WP:measure at B-class that could possibly be made GA-level.Pyrotec (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't like the article metrication – more a personal feeling than an objective assessment, but it seems to concentrate too much on the politics of the process, rather than sticking to the facts and letting the reader decide. It's also somewhat undersourced, and sources for the article in its current state would be hard to find. If I were WikiDictator, I'd scrap it and start again from scratch!

All the same, there are some interesting measurement articles which could be easily brought to GA standard. Kelvin needs expanding, but the informaton that needs to go in is easy to find (for me, at least!). Candela is a nice introduction, although I don't really have the technical knowledge to expand it further. There are also some articles on physical constants which I haven't tagged yet (I'm tagging by hand, so I've probably only tagged about a fifth of measurement articles so far): Planck constant and Avogadro constant are two of mine which probably need copyediting before a GA nomination but which are essentially complete and worthy articles. I'llhave a think and try to find a suitable candidate for nomination this week sometime. Physchim62 (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with moving "History of Molecule"

There is a growing consensus that the "History of the molecule" page should be renamed. I would like to use the name "History of molecular theory" however this name is already set up as redirect. As a admin can you perform the move? M stone (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Move

Hi, I called for discussion a week ago. Nobody appeared. Since you appear to disagree, I will stop until the issue is discussed. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer is hardly the most widely viewed page on Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be better to post this at WT:CHEM, WT:PHARM and WT:MED to try to address the points you raise. Physchim62 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, this is why I posted it in 8 pages (not in one). But since this appears to be not as obvious I expected, I will post it to WP:RM and WT:CHEM.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw you posted it also at WT:PHARM and WT:MED. Well done. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Class templates at WP:Chem

Hi, I saw your username while investigating these templates and I know you've been involved over at WP:AWG as well, so I figured you'd be a good person to ask. I notice that WP:Chem is using the following class templates on a number of pages: {{Chem A-Class}}, {{Chem GA-Class}}, {{Chem B-Class}}, {{Chem FA}}, {{Chem Start}} and {{Chem Stub}}. Given that these do not correspond to the project's banner template, I was wondering if it would be OK to replace or redirect these to the standard class templates ({{A-Class}}, {{GA-Class}} etc.)? Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem, but these are not templates that are doing anyone any harm: I will give it another go to get WP:CHEM to standardize, at least to the classes which it accepts! Physchim62 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I've just been doing a bit of cleanup with regards to obscure and largely unused class types, and these seemed pretty much redundant to the standard templates. PC78 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Draft European Union laws

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Draft European Union laws]] to articles/subcategories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, the category was empty partly because of miscategorization, partly because some of the article subjects have now been enacted (things like the CLP Regulation). It never has many articles, as there are few proposals which are deemed interesting enough to have an article on them while they are still proposals. It strikes me that it might be at the wrong title as well: Category:Proposed European Union laws might be better. In any case, I think a CfD discussion would be better than any speedy deletion. Physchim62 (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• If brought to CfD, it would probably be deleted, but that says more about CfD than it does about this category. I mean it no harm. Thanks for repopulating it. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JBsupreme (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My opposition to your request for speedy deletion is valid until 2359 (UTC) tonight. Can that be said for the rest of the arguments being raised? Physchim62 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ATC categories: How many levels?

Your comment would be appreciated here. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing comments

Hi Physchim, don't get too wound up by SandyGeorgia's comments about "non-reliable sources". I think most of us know that articles deserving of the ratings B, GA, A or FA (and even a few below that) tend to be based on good sources and have much useful information. In these cases a copyedit can be a good way of improving Wiki articles as a whole. What I believe she was referring to was some of the dreadful material you sometimes get on start/C class articles. I'm sure you'll agree that, in these cases, a rewrite would be more appropriate than a copyedit. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Electron PR request

Greetings! The article Electron has been posted for a second peer review. We have tried to address all of the concerns that came up during the first FAC for this article. As you participated in this FAC and did not support the article's promotion to featured status, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look and see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches

I am sure we could find some point to disagree about if we tried hard enough ;) --BirgitteSB 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after several hours of careful analysis, I think we disagree on the topic of "attribution of authorship through the edit history". I only point this out for old time's sake ;) Physchim62 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Exista

Yesterday my wife got a takeover offer for her share in Exista. They're buying us out for 20 ISK, approximately €0.12. Fun times. That's still more than we got for our Kaupþing shares! Haukur (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Glass chemistry

Hi, I tried to summarize glass chemistry topics here on the glass taskforce page. Please inform me, if you have further suggestions. Another idea: Would it be possible to put the glass chemistry topics in a box somewhere on the chemistry project page or one of its sub-pages? Thanks... -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea! I will check it over for potential problems, and then add my SEAL of approval ;) Best wishes, no worries about the plagiarism thing, we disagree, such things happen ;) Physchim62 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

If available, your comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. ---kilbad (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Icelandic parliamentary election, 2009

On 26 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Icelandic parliamentary election, 2009, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Andorran parliamentary election, 2009

On 27 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Andorran parliamentary election, 2009, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

On 10 May, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

Thanks for the update. I love ya. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time when you update an article massively, please use the {{Inuse}} template. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ex-finance minister update

This may amuse you. Árni M. Mathiesen, being no longer in parliament, has been hired as a veterinarian for a clinic in the south of Iceland. Lucky guy to get employment in his field in the current economic situation. What created the vacancy? Well, the guy he's replacing just got elected to parliament... [8] Haukur (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! We just need to find a job for this man now… Physchim62 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nitpickers

As a Guardian of the Main Page, I assure you we need rules and software to determine what articles are long enough (although I wish the rule were simpler) because we don't have time to debate the merit of each nomination in detail. Note that most nominations don't get evaluated for several days until there is time enough. If a nomination is considered boring or misleading, no rule will help decide; but article length is a routine, automatable issue, and we don't have time to re-invent the length rule every time. Your article, of course, is now long enough. Art LaPella (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

CAS story

Exciting news about the collaboration with CAS! Do you have time to write up a little story about it for the signpost? It could run separately or we could add it to News & Notes, if you don't have time to write something long. Let me know! Thanks, --phoebe / (talk to me) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done! User:Physchim62/Signpost. Physchim62 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I left some suggestions at the article's talk page.--ragesoss (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Physchim62 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicely written up, PC - thanks! Sorry I've been so quiet, I'm trying to mark 250 lab reports by Tuesday morning....! Walkerma (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Quickly written up… there's nothing like working to journalistic deadlines! I was just about to email you – feel free to change anything that needs changing! Physchim62 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Having just read over 45 sophomore papers, my English skills is totally shot. really. it loox awsome. (In fairness to my students, they're not too bad!) thx2u, Walkerma (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Walkerma: ha ;) psychim: it looks awesome! Nice work. I use CAS & SciFinder all day at work (we have the chemistry collections in the library I work in) so I am super excited about this professionally, too. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your piece on WikiProject Chemicals and peripheral issues was well-written and interesting. I'm not sure if experienced Wikipedians think themselves to be too mature for barnstars, but here's one in recognition of your writing nonetheless. :-) Good work! Regards, AGK 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its only my second barnstar in four years' editing… and an Original Barnstar as well! Thanks! :) Physchim62 (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I, too, came here to say "great article" - really well written, and great job providing context so that even those of us who didn't even know there was a WP:CHEM understood it all. :) Stevage 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey foot still in use

I have revised the tense in one spot in your contribution to the Mile article to avoid indicating the U.S. survey foot is no longer in use. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't! Indeed, I copy-pasted over from United States customary units to point out that it is the "statute mile" in 24 states (but not federally, as the federal government works in kilometers). However, the idea that the statute mile must be based on the U.S. survey mile is false: the statute mile is 1760 yards, however you define your yard! That was the problem that led to the international yard in the first place. Physchim62 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Deprod Self-hatin Jew

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Self-hating Jew, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! .--Peter cohen (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Candy (unit)

On May 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Candy (unit), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice

I liked your bold edit here.[9] What did you mean by "more work doing on it"? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"More work" would be formally justifying that there's nothing worth incorporating into the PFOS article (or including it, if there is something that is worth salvaging). We should really have some better references for PFOS as well: there must be plenty of secondary sources now that it's been listed on the Stockholm Convention. Physchim62 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it about formally justifying. PFOA is the DuPont/C8 redirect article though. I'll find an English language reference for PFOS and Stockholm. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad getting mixed up between PFOS and PFOA. I've replaced the Czech link in PFOS with the official Stockholm Convention press release, which I happened to have lying around ;) This is the sort of useful data which could be referenced in the article! There is surprisingly little data at the EU level: I can't even find the justification for its Annex 1 listing, which usually pops up quite quickly when I search for these things. Even more surprisingly, PFOA doesn't even have an EC number. Physchim62 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me give a concrete example of bad referencing on PFOS! Reference 8 links to a journal editorial, when the original paper is open access. Even worse, we report the study which shows a small but significant correlation between PFOS/PFOA exposure and birth weight, without saying that the effect is small and without noting the occupational study which found no effect at all (Grice et al., 2007). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these things aren't reproductive toxins – PFOS has been classed as "Repr. Cat. 2" by the EU, which means pretty conclusive animal data – I just think we need to be very careful in our balance and selection of sources, so that the final conclusion is indisputable. Physchim62 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for the link. I referenced the journal write-up to show some notability so as to not rely on the primary source. Thanks for bringing up Grice. Interestingly Washino [10] observed this inconsistent association only in female infants. EINECS# added to PFOA. (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't read TOO much into these human data – the effect (luckily) is very small, only just statistically significant, which easily explains why it wasn't found in the occupational study. It's a bit of a case of "we know PFOS is reproductively toxic in rats, so we looked in humans; and if we looked really hard we could just see an effect." Of course, a tiny effect multiplied over the world population with a persistant polluant is still a serious public health problem, but we get the message across better by not overstating the sources!

Journal editorials are usually very bad sources for articles, because their role is to "hype" the papers published in that particular journal. I'm rarely too worried about the notability of individual chemical compounds – I work on the principle that if we can find stuff to write (encyclopedically) about it, then it's notable! PFOS is obviously notable now, because of it's Stockholm listing; PFOA is notable because it's similar to PFOS but it might be slightly different (no one's quite sure yet). If I wanted to prove the notability of a compound, I would prefer articles in mainstream, large-circulation newspapers or unconnected science magazines such as C&EN rather than journal pieces.

Congrats on finding the EINCES for PFOA, I was pretty sure it must have one but I couldn't find it earlier (partly because I was searching under the wrong IUPAC name – heptadeca… instead of pentadeca… – doh!) Physchim62 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Toxic

well, you know... i've copyed the content of an other template, so that cat 'n dog think isn't really mine. i was more concerned about the layout of that old one.XD and eeeeh about that WP think.. i don't really know what that is. whatever it is.. i'm in

--Allstrak (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Physchim62. You have new messages at Talk:Hypertension/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I left you a new msg there :-) MaenK.A._Talk 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Air_France_Flight_447

You're getting way over the line in calling another editor "stupid." I agree with you that he's wrong, but personal attacks & insults are not the basis of editing here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor had three options to choose from; unreasonable, stupid, or excessively omphaloskeptic with regards to Wikipedia. My own opinion is the third, and I've engaged a conversation on the editor's talk page to try to address this problem. I will note that the phrase "Therefore your suggestion that I "did not conduct the most simple research" is a great steaming load of crap." was not considered actionable by ArbCom. Therefore, I will grant no respect to "the basis of editing here" other than that required by WP:CIVIL, especially not when it is claimed in their own defense by administrators who should know better. Physchim62 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Riiiight. Whatever bone you have to pick with the admins, I'm not involved. Just please don't drag it to unrelated talk pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:5P is not enough for some editors, who feel that Wikipedia is a world in itself with its own rules. Some of those people have got to adminship, which speaks more for the quality control procedures at WP:RFA than anything else. Physchim62 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Chemistry interview

Hey there. I've been doing interviews for the Signpost's WikiProject Report lately. Would you like to be interviewed as a representative of WikiProject Chemistry?

Yeh, no problems with that! You might want to contact Walkerma (talk · contribs) as well, as he's been doing chemistry related stuff even longer than I have. Physchim62 (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! The interview will take place here. Instructions can be found at the talk page here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. You're comments would be much appreciated! Thanks. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Physchim62. You have new messages at Talk:Hypertension/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

please check my last msg :-) MaenK.A._Talk 23:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Common Chemistry

Hi PC, I left this message for Beetstra - I'd like to get this issue resolved soon if possible. If he can't make it on Tuesday for IRC, are there any alternative topics you'd like to discuss? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypertension GA review

Hi, sorry for disturbing you, but I wanted to ask you, if you still want to continue reviewing the article, or shall I recruit someone els to continue that, thank you :-) MaenK.A._Talk 12:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Floating wind turbine

On 7 June, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Floating wind turbine, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Iliad

Hi; could I draw your attention to the deletion-nomination of Wikipedia:Iliad? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Organic metals

I posted that remark on WikiProject Chemistry out of frustration. The editor is skillful, tireless, and armed with a full arsenal of tools and tangential info that will foil virtually any effort to objectivize the article. There are trolls, and then there are super-trolls ... So we just have to wait until we find an editor in this area. It's really not that important, just irritating.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Contact

Regarding Article: Hydrazine sulfate

In your current statement on hydrazine sulfate, you are accepting false in formation, information that totally misrepresents the medical literature. As an example, the current piece on hydrazine sulfate states that the California (Harbor-UCLA) controlled clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate found no statistically significant survival improvement or other benefit due to this treatment. Whereas what the California studies actually reported was: "For PS [Performance Status] 0-1 patients survival was significantly prolonged with hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (P = .05). The survival at 1 year was also significantly increased (P = .05) for hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (42% v 18%, respectively" (Journal of Clinical Oncology 8:9-15, 1990). Nothing could be clearer than that.

The current piece on hydrazine sulfate is full of misrepresentations such as the above. They are offensive to the American public and in their lack of accuracy may actually be very harmful to our cancer patient populations. Please contact:

                   Joseph Gold, M.D.
                   Syracuse Cancer Research Institute
                   Phone: 315:472-6616
                   E-Mail: jg@scrinst.org

Judytaylorgold (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)