User talk:Kmurray

Hello

Hi. I am in the middle of a mediation between two users who have been having an edit war on the Mass-to-charge ratio page. Would you be interested in taking over for me as you are by far a more experienced person in the subject and it is a particularly technical area with which I am not familiar. I would most appreciate it, but you are by no means obligated. Thanks, Ryan4^Talk 04:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Productive end to the mass-to-charge debate

Thank you for your exceptionally accurate and productive input to the m/z debate. I am not interested in carrying it on myself. I have taken your suggestion to constrain the m/z explanation to the Mass spectrum article and have given disambiguation to said article. Please take a look at the mass spectrum article and give me some constructive feedback. In my opinion these articles should be informative with lowest priority given to any sort of contraversy and then given as an uninterested third party. As far as I am concerned Kherli may mislead as many physicists as he would like to. I am only interested in contributing to an informative body of mass spectrometry and chemistry articles. I am a physicist as well of course but we all have to pick our battles. My bottom line is do not mislead novice mass spectrometrists. I hope you understand that I am an admirer of Graham Cooks and understand his position. I am not opposed to anything except misrepresenting the facts. Cooks' idea is a good, meritous idea but NOT one that has caught on with more than a limited group of mass spectrometrists. m/z may be flawed but it is the accepted standard. I am right there personally regarding reworking the definition, it is long overdue. I am looking into official actions against Kherli due to his unrelenting advocacy (regardless that I consider myself a member of the cause). If you look in the history (or in the long organized argument against m/z in the talk section) you will see what the article looked like before I started fighting back. Now I am sick of it and will let Kherli have his way as long as there is disabiguation to a sensible informative article, a POV check label on his bias and I will seek official action against him.

Thanks,

--Nick Y. 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your input.

--Kmurray 02:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)