User talk:Isopropyl/Archive2

This is the talk page of a Wikipedia user. For the functional group, see isopropyl.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Most recent

Response

I would just go and tag all the articles with merge templates and then go to each article and calmly discuss why you think it should be merged. Pehaps the merged articles could be explained in a ection of the main article under different types of this reaction. I am compltely unfamiliar with this subject matter so I am not sure how to cobine them, but I think a subsection in the main article explaining the differences would be sufficient.--MONGO 21:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was contacted in regards to comments you made about Isopropyl. His edits are not vandalism, see WP:VAND for clarification. I believe he acted innocently in combining the articles, but the merge tag is the proper way to do this generally, but it's not a requirement in this case as the articles were not actively being edited heavily. How about combining all this stub articles under one main article? I really know nothing about Thermodynamics, but it may be best to have a main article with sections in that discussing the different reactions. Just a thought.--MONGO 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn’t “vandalism” per se, however, cutting, pasting, and piling 6 nice mentally-organized, and separate articles on a confusing topic (for many), as noted by the discussions from last year in Talk:Endergonic, into 3 is a form of reverse-organization. To clarify my point, from the WP:VAND page:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

Hence, although I sure he didn’t delete and change these pages deliberately, he did, as a result, reduce the quality of the encyclopedia by merging topics that are typically found as seperate entries in other related science dictionaries and encyclopedias. In some cases he simply deleted full definitions, hence leaving the encyclopedia with no remaining definition, such as, for example, by deleting the following:

An exergonic reaction is a chemical reaction where the variation of free energy is negative. This tells us the direction that the reaction will follow.

Certainly we could expand on this definition, but there is no need to “delete” it and do a redirect to “exergonic”. Furthermore, the stubs were all sourced via a thermodynamics dictionary. Moreover, it is standard protocol, e.g. The Essential Dictionary of Science (Clark 2004), to have separate entries for such closely-related but subtly-different topics as:

Exothermic – a process or reaction that involves the release of energy; usually in the form of heat.
Exothermic reaction – a chemical reaction in which heat is give out.

Hence, where I spent several hours separating these topics, i.e. by writing and sourcing stubs, Isopropyl went the reverse direction: i.e. instead of working together, he dismantled hour’s worth of well-intentioned work. My main objection to his actions is that if failed to use any of the talk pages before making such bold moves. Regarding the loss of recent contributions made by recent users, in order to revert back to separate articles; a lot of content was lost, someone is going to have to go back and re-add these parts (certainly a time-consuming task)? Regarding my talk page (Talk:Sadi Carnot) I always respond to comments, but clear my talk-page afterwards so to keep everything clean.--Sadi Carnot 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to set things straight once and for all. Sadi Carnot seems to be misunderstanding several of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. The personal attacks on eight different talk pages are aggravating, but I'm going to assume that he/she just doesn't know how things work around these parts. Here's a quick tour.

Regarding accusations of vandalism. I am still quite shocked that Sadi Carnot does not understand that merging a page is not vandalism. If so, there are hundreds of instances of "vandalism" occurring every day as stubs get moved and recombined to create other articles. One should assume good faith when editing the work of others, instead of just doling out accusations of vandalism. Regarding my "deletion of full definitions"...

In some cases he simply deleted full definitions, hence leaving the encyclopedia with no remaining definition...

When I merged, I moved all of the information from the reaction stub. There was no loss of information. It is a common practice to merge a stub with very little information when that page isn't being heavily edited. Sadi Carnot's own definition places "exothermic reaction" under the broader category of "exothermic". A user who wishes to know about such a reaction would find equivalent information if redirected to the umbrella definition. In any case, we could have worked something out if Sadi Carnot had contacted me prior to making a personal attack on eight different talk pages (here, here, here, here, and so forth). I would have been reasonable when dealing with these pages, as I do not have any personal attachment to these pages, unlike Sadi Carnot. Which brings up the next point.

Hence, where I spent several hours separating these topics, i.e. by writing and sourcing stubs, Isopropyl went the reverse direction: i.e. instead of working together, he dismantled hour’s worth of well-intentioned work.

I have no idea what is meant by this. See "please note" at the bottom of every edit page, where it plainly states If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. While we're at it, Sadi Carnot may as well check out WP:OWN since he/she seem to not understand that one does not control one's articles once they are posted. As for dismantling work, when Sadi Carnot reverted, every single edit that I and other editors had made during that month was removed.

My main objection to his actions is that if failed to use any of the talk pages before making such bold moves.

At the time, the merge did not seem controversial. Not a single editor complained about the merge and redirect, and we were all happily editing the articles in question until the author decided that it was his/her way or the high way and performed reverts to bring them back to his/her edits of a month ago. I am under no obligation to notify anybody when I perform a noncontroversial merge. However, Sadi Carnot should check to make sure that he/she do not use the m (minor edit) flag when he/she reverts in the future, as was the case in these eight reverts. Reverting a month's worth of edits by other people because you like your version better is definitely a major edit.

Regarding talk pages: it was certainly not controversial. However, Sadi Carnot should probably follow his/her own advice, as no contact with me was ever made, nor comment made on talk pages, outside of veiled personal attacks. Regarding "bold" moves, it certainly wasn't bold to merge two stubs together, but Sadi Carnot should probably read WP:BOLD anyways since there seems to be a general misunderstanding of its contents.

In closing, I would like to remind Sadi Carnot tha it is common practice not to blank one's talk page, especially when critical comments are made on it. One may consider archiving a discussion as an alternative. If the aforementioned user would like further assistance, I will be more than happy to oblige. -Isopropyl 14:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed comments

Based on the above discussion, I apologize if I over-reacted. I hope that we can move past this obstacle leaving behind any discontent. I have removed the "vandalism" comments and changed the 6 talk pages the following:

Please do not merge these separate 6 pages

The merge debate goes back to '05 (see: Talk:Endergonic). The result of the debate was to not merge. Moreover, it is standard protocol, e.g. according to both The Essential Dictionary of Science (Clark 2004) and the A to Z Dictionary of Thermodynamics (Perrot 1998), to have separate entries for such closely-related but subtly-different topics such as:

Exothermic – a process or reaction that involves the release of energy; usually in the form of heat.
Exothermic reaction – a chemical reaction in which heat is give out.

As well as for the other terms: endothermic, endothermic reaction, etc. For example, the melting of an ice-cube is an endothermic process; combustion evolves an exothermic reaction, warm-blooded animals are endothermic, arguing with other Wikipedians is an endergonic activity, etc. Help us expand on these separate stubs, but please don't merge. Wikipedia has unlimited storage space. Articles are sure to grow. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Thanks. To be fair though, I should admit that the design is stolen from User:Vague Rant. Cnwb 05:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which beta galactosidase?

Could you state the source species and exact name of the beta galactosidase you used?--BerserkerBen 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be general. When the information provided is specific, I have attempted to list the species in question. I guess I should probably note that the information about humans is from lysosomal beta-galactosidase. Isopropyl 07:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are unhappy with the material, I encourage you to change it. I'm sure that the article as written could use a bit of improvement. Isopropyl 07:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I am moving Naadi from Prod to Afd to see if someone can improve it. Tintin (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HighlandSS.PNG

I am deleting this image: it is definitely copyrighted by Google/Keyhole or one of its suppliers. (You requested updates to be posted to your talk page.) Wikiacc (?) 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had actually forgotten about tagging that, it must've been a couple weeks ago :) Isopropyl 21:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Carolina

Hi!

Thanks for letting me know about your reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Carolina. I know you mean well, but the decision was an obvious one, it's just troll-feeding (note the nom described a magazine and web site as a messageboard). I'll ask an admin to look into closing it. Best, Proto||type 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry Proto, but regardless of your opinion of the nomination, this AfD will remain open until there is a consensus or five days are up, whereupon it shall be closed by a closing admin, not us. I do agree that this is a troll magnet, but the article itself is rather inflammatory. Perhaps tidying up the page a bit would be more useful than trying to close this debate. Isopropyl 15:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I actually forgot... I should have timed my RFA so it started today instead of a couple of days back. Bah! But yay... wonder if I can justify a cake? :) Proto||type 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Can you tell me the name of the article that was deleted that you enquired about on the help deak? I'll have a look at who removed it and the reasoning behind the deletion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I didn't make the inquiry; I simply responded to the request. The preceding comment was unsigned, which is probably the source of confusion. Isopropyl 17:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, must pay more attention to diffs. Sorry to bother you. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Big Bang

The last time we talked about this particular link was here though it was discussed before then as well. I am aware of the Noticeboard discussions about me. User:Iantresman every few months or so decided he wants to try to get me in trouble, but as I haven't been doing anything wrong and he is pretty much guilty of POV-pushing on various articles, usually ends up giving up after a few weeks of getting nowhere. --ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute vs Wiki policy violation

I would appreciate your advice over your comment regarding my Admin Noticeboard request concerning ScienceApologist and Plasma cosmology.

I'd like to know at what point a content dispute becomes a requirement for admin intervention? I would have thought that any contravention of Wiki policy, potentially requires admin intervention? But it seems that any contravention of Wiki policy over content, is deemed a content dispute, irrespective of whether Wiki policy is contravened?

You also mention that I should "make it clear what an administrator needs to do." What normally happens to someone who is contravening Wiki policy, such as 3RR? --Iantresman 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN is not really the place to be debating issues. If a user is guilty of a 3RR violation, it's best to report them at WP:AN/3RR. If you look at the other posts on the noticeboard, you'll see that the majority (though not all) are brief, unambiguous requests such as "undelete" or "protect this page".

I have spoken to ScienceApologist (see above) about the issue. Though I have no prior involvement or knowledge of this dispute, it sounds like this is a recurring problem. It may be helpful to review the dispute resolution process. If you want to resolve this case, my advice is that you file an RFC. You can present as much evidence as you like, and third parties can leave their comments. Have a happy April Fool's day! Isopropyl 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Misc

No worries. It was such a lengthy explanation, I was just waiting for the 'pedia to tell me there was an edit conflict. So I'm actually glad that you didn't respond because I hate those conflicts. :-) P.S. I also left him a welcome message. Dismas|^(talk) 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting On Multiple Boards

Well its hard to not post on more than 1 board when you don't get any comment...

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me (email excluded) [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 19:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can play nice too

It's only POV pushing in your mind, because you have a different political bent than I do. My purpose is not to add POV, but to tame it -- I'm shocked by the sheer amount of nonsense that makes it into this encyclopedia, just by sheer force of will from those spreading bizarre ideas, such as those present on the conspiracy pages and around controversial political figures, such as Scarborough, Mumia, Zinn, Savage, Menchu et al. That's not to say that I have problems with all left-leaning editors -- SkeenaR and I cross swords all of the time, yet we have become Wiki-friends. I save my rancor for people that use admin privileges to promote their own edits and slanted political messages -- unfortunately, that happens frequently on these pages, and other admins have been absolutely no help in resolving these disputes. That's why you see some of that frustration vented on my talk page. My purpose is to put a target on some of those abuses, because unfortunately there is no adequate police force on Wikipedia to help resolve these kinds of disputes. Sorry for the long answer, I just don't know what your beef is, since you and I have never conversed. Rather than unilaterally complaining, please try talking with me first. Thanks. Cheers. Morton devonshire 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zimm-Bragg Model

Seen some posts of yours on the reference desk. I was wondering what class(if any) used "Dill and Bromberg" ? I'm registering for classes and that kind of stuff sounds interesting. Don't go to your university but wondering nonetheless. -Snpoj 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact title was "Thermodynamics of Biomolecular Systems". It was an overview of statistical mechanics applied to biology, with basic enzymatics thrown in. Let me know if you need anything else! Isopropyl 02:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Move request

I did the move, and then I realised that the target has a substantive history, and there was some debate over how to handle it. Can you clarify this? I think in this case, you might just have to do a copy-paste move, as the histories over lap. Or maybe WP:RM is the right place to go when a history exists at the target. -Splash^talk 22:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about whether the article should be called "punk pop" or "pop punk", not about the capitalization. The parallel article at "pop punk" follows the correct naming convention. Would you still recommend that I take this to WP:RM or should I do a copy-and-paste move? Isopropyl 22:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it's just the substantive history at the correct capitalisation. I realise that is (probably) uncontroversial, but there was some to-and-fro in that article's own history. Honestly, RM scares me a bit, and I don't know precisely how to handle things like this. I'd like to be educated if you can tell me what the procedure is. -Splash^talk 22:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to avoid WP:RM myself, as I've never used it before either. Oh well, gotta learn sometime :) I'll follow the directions there...Isopropyl 23:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I can't be more help. I would be if I could be. Good luck. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links in guqin article

We need someone who knows something about the instrument to clean out the external links and remove linkspam. Yay! Isopropyl 01:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I know a lot about the instrument (otherwise, the article will still be in stub form)! Most of the external links are legit (from legit sites on qin, societies, news articles, etc); most have very good information. I've avoid all direct linkspams and promo sites. Most are rather informative, though I admit I haven't reviewed it for some time; one or two links might not be appropriate now. But please put links you feel not appropriate in the discussion page so I can diseminate them there. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]