Hi, Itub, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, -- El on ka 01:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your support | |
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi. You seemed interested in this article. I have expanded the article with published papers and I submitted it for FAC. If you have time, take a look at the article again and leave some comments. Thanks! Nergaal ( talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Itub, we are holding the IRC meeting at 1600 UTC after all. I hope you can come! Walkerma ( talk) 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added an entry myself - Coulson's Valence. I can not think why it was not added earlier. Could you keep an eye on the discussion on the talk page, if any, to keep or delete it, and close it on January 28? -- Bduke ( talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Arsenicum album, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenicum album. Thank you. TableManners C· U· T 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that it certainly shouldn't be any longer; however, since homeopathy is a highly controversial subject on Wikipedia, it seemed best to give plenty of references to support the text.
I've moved the last paragraph to the talk page - you're right that that's probably irrelevant. Adam Cuerden talk 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I revamped the template. what do you think? Nergaal ( talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for [1]! I must apologize, it's been so long since I've touched thermochemistry I've forgotten all the essentials... sign conventions and states of matter. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A comment has been posted on Talk:Montmorillonite regarding the ceel spacing on Image:Montmorillonite-en.svg which you uploaded las summer. Seems the cell spacing is given as mm on the image whereas it should read nm. Vsmith ( talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments would be appreciated in Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature about the "Most awarded countries" table since you previously commented on this issue in Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry. A similar table was removed from the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Nobel Prize in Physics articles in December 2007 but has been reinstated in the Nobel Prize in Literature article. – panda ( talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Why so much emphasis in saying that it is only "mildly" toxic? While I agree that a lethal dose > 1 g could reasonably called "mild", it is an arbitrary distinction. Who sets the limits between nontoxic, mildly toxic, toxic, highly toxic, extremely toxic, etc.? My suggestion is to avoid any such labels and just give the numbers, unless you are getting the label from an authority such as a standards organization or government (in which case it would be a good idea to cite it). Consider that NaF is called "toxic" by EU standards, if the infobox at sodium fluoride is correct. It has a 3 in the NFPA scale from 0 to 4 (although some sources give it a 2; I haven't checked to see if there is an authoritative NFPA source I can check). JT Baker even calls it "severe (poison)". [2] Sure, as chemists we may feel that MSDSs tend to err in the side of exaggeration, because we don't tend to eat the chemicals we work with, and we usually work with small amounts, so NaF doesn't seem like a big deal. But it is toxic. Not as much as botulinum toxin, or even good ol' cyanide, but still toxic. About a couple of orders of magnitude more toxic than table salt, for example. Table salt has also been used for suicide, but it is way less likely to cause accidental deaths, because it is much less toxic than NaF. -- Itub ( talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ ( talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question at Talk: Group (periodic table) re the date of the new IUPAC system. This is the information I wanted - much more informative than an undefined "new". Dirac66 ( talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see signs that anybody but David believes there is any error in derivations, formulas, or the way the formulas are applied in any of the articles fictitious force, centrifugal force or centripetal force. Do you agree about that?
If so, please, what is the objective of the D Tombe engagement? If not, please tell me what is at stake here, because I'd like to clarify any points that really bother you. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far? There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, [5], [6]), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Itub - In respect of the above article, I agree my "table salt" comment may have been overcooking the point a little. However, and with all respect, I think my edit relating to the amount of lead in tap water was fairly based. However, I'm not too strongly wedded to my edit and so I'm happy to abide with your edit -- best regards Quantockgoblin ( talk) 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For some of the paragraphs that you added, they do not have references at the very end. Could you please add some references to those? It's harder (at least, for me) to find references to back up scientific articles than others because of the more limited resources compared to popular culture articles and the like. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in regard to Janet's Left Step Periodic table. I agree with you. It should be a separate article about the LSPT and its variations.
Drova ( talk) 14:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this forum that discusses LSPT alternative table that is called ADOMAH PT if you are interested. Drova ( talk) 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I removed my comment to my own talk page, per your note at the top. -- SCZenz ( talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking consumer products are notable as well! Thanks for the clear and concise Keep. Shoombooly ( talk) 12:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think it's a bit mean if I explicitly state in the edit summary that I'm expanding the article to save an own copy and now 2 hours of my work are for the birds? -- Oxymoron 83 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on the OR discussion, which are probably lost in the sea of verbage that comes with these debates, were insightful. It is the general chem topics (elements, basic concepts) that are most difficult to write and most important to explain, but these same article are targeted by eager young learners who are keen to spread or test their insights. I dont see any resolution to this situation short of some sort of controls. One partial step would be to limit the editing of the key articles to registered users, but allow anyone to make comments on talk pages.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add Hess's law. Must have been an edit conflict. Sorry! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Added Category:Name reactions to all on your list. Added {{ Chemistry}} to the talk pages on that list too. Let me know what else I can help. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This recent article has given me an idea - how about an {{ infobox reaction}}? Parameters I am thinking of include:
What do you think? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 08:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noble gas Gary King ( talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Itub, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, -- El on ka 01:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your support | |
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi. You seemed interested in this article. I have expanded the article with published papers and I submitted it for FAC. If you have time, take a look at the article again and leave some comments. Thanks! Nergaal ( talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Itub, we are holding the IRC meeting at 1600 UTC after all. I hope you can come! Walkerma ( talk) 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added an entry myself - Coulson's Valence. I can not think why it was not added earlier. Could you keep an eye on the discussion on the talk page, if any, to keep or delete it, and close it on January 28? -- Bduke ( talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Arsenicum album, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenicum album. Thank you. TableManners C· U· T 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that it certainly shouldn't be any longer; however, since homeopathy is a highly controversial subject on Wikipedia, it seemed best to give plenty of references to support the text.
I've moved the last paragraph to the talk page - you're right that that's probably irrelevant. Adam Cuerden talk 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I revamped the template. what do you think? Nergaal ( talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for [1]! I must apologize, it's been so long since I've touched thermochemistry I've forgotten all the essentials... sign conventions and states of matter. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A comment has been posted on Talk:Montmorillonite regarding the ceel spacing on Image:Montmorillonite-en.svg which you uploaded las summer. Seems the cell spacing is given as mm on the image whereas it should read nm. Vsmith ( talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments would be appreciated in Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature about the "Most awarded countries" table since you previously commented on this issue in Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry. A similar table was removed from the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Nobel Prize in Physics articles in December 2007 but has been reinstated in the Nobel Prize in Literature article. – panda ( talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Why so much emphasis in saying that it is only "mildly" toxic? While I agree that a lethal dose > 1 g could reasonably called "mild", it is an arbitrary distinction. Who sets the limits between nontoxic, mildly toxic, toxic, highly toxic, extremely toxic, etc.? My suggestion is to avoid any such labels and just give the numbers, unless you are getting the label from an authority such as a standards organization or government (in which case it would be a good idea to cite it). Consider that NaF is called "toxic" by EU standards, if the infobox at sodium fluoride is correct. It has a 3 in the NFPA scale from 0 to 4 (although some sources give it a 2; I haven't checked to see if there is an authoritative NFPA source I can check). JT Baker even calls it "severe (poison)". [2] Sure, as chemists we may feel that MSDSs tend to err in the side of exaggeration, because we don't tend to eat the chemicals we work with, and we usually work with small amounts, so NaF doesn't seem like a big deal. But it is toxic. Not as much as botulinum toxin, or even good ol' cyanide, but still toxic. About a couple of orders of magnitude more toxic than table salt, for example. Table salt has also been used for suicide, but it is way less likely to cause accidental deaths, because it is much less toxic than NaF. -- Itub ( talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ ( talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question at Talk: Group (periodic table) re the date of the new IUPAC system. This is the information I wanted - much more informative than an undefined "new". Dirac66 ( talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see signs that anybody but David believes there is any error in derivations, formulas, or the way the formulas are applied in any of the articles fictitious force, centrifugal force or centripetal force. Do you agree about that?
If so, please, what is the objective of the D Tombe engagement? If not, please tell me what is at stake here, because I'd like to clarify any points that really bother you. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far? There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, [5], [6]), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Itub - In respect of the above article, I agree my "table salt" comment may have been overcooking the point a little. However, and with all respect, I think my edit relating to the amount of lead in tap water was fairly based. However, I'm not too strongly wedded to my edit and so I'm happy to abide with your edit -- best regards Quantockgoblin ( talk) 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For some of the paragraphs that you added, they do not have references at the very end. Could you please add some references to those? It's harder (at least, for me) to find references to back up scientific articles than others because of the more limited resources compared to popular culture articles and the like. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in regard to Janet's Left Step Periodic table. I agree with you. It should be a separate article about the LSPT and its variations.
Drova ( talk) 14:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this forum that discusses LSPT alternative table that is called ADOMAH PT if you are interested. Drova ( talk) 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I removed my comment to my own talk page, per your note at the top. -- SCZenz ( talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking consumer products are notable as well! Thanks for the clear and concise Keep. Shoombooly ( talk) 12:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think it's a bit mean if I explicitly state in the edit summary that I'm expanding the article to save an own copy and now 2 hours of my work are for the birds? -- Oxymoron 83 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on the OR discussion, which are probably lost in the sea of verbage that comes with these debates, were insightful. It is the general chem topics (elements, basic concepts) that are most difficult to write and most important to explain, but these same article are targeted by eager young learners who are keen to spread or test their insights. I dont see any resolution to this situation short of some sort of controls. One partial step would be to limit the editing of the key articles to registered users, but allow anyone to make comments on talk pages.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add Hess's law. Must have been an edit conflict. Sorry! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Added Category:Name reactions to all on your list. Added {{ Chemistry}} to the talk pages on that list too. Let me know what else I can help. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This recent article has given me an idea - how about an {{ infobox reaction}}? Parameters I am thinking of include:
What do you think? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 08:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noble gas Gary King ( talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)