![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I hope this is the right place for this comment. The term Solution is a synoymn for the terms Chemical Solution, within the field of Chemistry, and Business Solution, within the field of Information Technology.
Within the field of Business and Information Technology (IT) a Solution is defined as some combination of tangible and/or intangible product(s) that address a business problem.
Currently, there is a redirection from Chemical Solution to Solution. I believe that the redirection should be from Solution to Chemical Solution and to Business Solution. The redirection from Chemical Solution to Solution be removed so the article that is currently in Solution reside on the Chemical Solution article. This will accomodate these two terms and refer to the appropriate term in the appropriate field.-- Davidmarten223 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I am new to the
WikiProject Chemistry, so please correct me if this is not the right place to discuss this. I noticed the new WikiProject Chemistry info boxes on the talk pages of chemistry articles and think they are a great addition. My question is: if there is no rating for quality or importance scale yet, may I add one if I feel I know the topic well enough? Or should I discuss it first? Where? On the talk page of the corresponding article or rather on this page here? In case of the
phosphate article I suggest an importance level of 'mid'. Thanks, --
Splette
Talk
17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You may know that I have been tagging the element talk pages, and adding assessments. I chose to classify the common elements like oxygen and iron as "Top-importance". As for the others, I figured that just by being an element (and thus a basic building block of chemistry), any of the others should rank as "High" importance. Is this OK? Or do you think elements like promethium should be only Mid? Feedback please? Thanks, Walkerma 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to update the Chemistry COTM this month for two reasons.
Please help out by contributing. ~K 17:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Our good friend caffeine is now featured, but still lacks the first total synthesis by E. Fischer!-- Stone 13:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys
We don't have an article (or I haven't found one) on PPh3O yet. It's pretty ubiquitous, appearing often when triphenylphosphine is used in reactions. Is it worthy of a full article? Or a section in triphenylphosphine and a redirect to that page?
-- Rifleman 82 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a long-running dispute concerning whether uranium trioxide gas is a combustion product of uranium. I have found an expert, Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle, with 45 years of experience in the subject, who claims that the research literature I have cited indicates that the gas is a combustion product. A handful of editors stridently opposing me have for several months claimed that the gas is not a combustion product, without any sources supporting that point of view. I ask that a neutral third party WikiProject participant please phone or email Dr. Alexander, at the number and/or address given at Talk:Uranium trioxide#Discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, and ask him for the reasons he feels that the sources cited there support his and my view that uranium trioxide gas is a combustion product of uranium, and share his responses with all on Talk:Uranium trioxide. Thanks in advance. LossIsNotMore 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mion started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Hydrogen, see also Hydrogen technologies. He created a number of categories and templates, like the monstrous Template:Sustainability and energy development group now on TfD.
Unfortunately I've got the impression, that his knowledge in the area is rather limited and his actions, as well-intended they may be, will make the affected articles worse, not better. In the moment, I'm struggling with his intentions to classify the osmosis cell as a fuel cell. He gives sources like a "PC magazine encyclopedia of IT terms" and the OED. Ouch.
Anyone interested to check his contris?
Pjacobi 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I could use some help reverting POV in the Combinatorial chemistry article. I posted the origonal POV edit on the talk page. Thanks, ~K 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, i have checked to this article as reference to my study but i found it a little bit confusing, could someone please enhance it or take a look at it?, I believe this article requires rephrasing some concepts to be easily understood for users non familiar with the topic.Cheers -- HappyApple 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
New here, but just noticed on the information panels for gases (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide ) it gives density information, quoting relevant temperature. Shouldn't these also quote pressure? (I presume they're at 10000 Pa?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.121.243 ( talk • contribs)
Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. -- Kingboyk 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC) PS You have a bug in your template: It's displaying a stray bracket at the end:
![]() | Chemistry Project‑class | ||||||
|
As far as I can tell we don't have an article on Diamagnetic anisotropy. Anyone want to take a stab at it? I don't know anything about the subject matter myself, merely that someone who does know about it thinks that there is a large oversight in not having any information on it. -- 69.138.178.196 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI: There are a few chemical stubs are up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_25#1-Methylindole.2C_2-Bromo-1-chloropropane_and_5-Methylindole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olin ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 September 2006.
Earlier today I made an effort to improve the parabens article which was a real mess. There is a bit of controversy about the safety of parabens and I tried to cut out much of the commentary from both points of view. I did a bit of research and included references to some of the more relevant scientific studies representing both sides. I feel I made a vast improvement to the article, but shortly afterwards an anon IP came in and copy-and-pasted much of the older stuff back in, with edit summaries referring to my edits as " borderline vandalism" and "POV pushing". I realize that as a scientist I have a certain perspective, but can others please look at the article and help keep the article neutral and encyclopedic? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgar181 ( talk • contribs)
Hello, There are two different editors which are both erasing entire sections of this article. Please oversight the history page and article.
I am a new user that does not know what to do in this situation. I think removing large sections of the parabens article may be vandalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Parabens&diff=78477710&oldid=78447944 Thank You. -- 63.17.32.188 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
my comments:
V8rik 20:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I respectively disagee with some of Walkerma comments. Ed ERASED large portions of the parabens article and replaced it with his own one-sided BIAS preferred version. He erased information I constructively contributed to which my info is 100% Wikipedic. I have added information back to balance the article instead of the one-sided POV pushing at best and/or vandalism at worst. It is reasonable to tell the TRUTH. Check the history pages of the Parabens article for the clear EVIDENCE!!! -- 63.17.95.220 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I hope this is the right place for this comment. The term Solution is a synoymn for the terms Chemical Solution, within the field of Chemistry, and Business Solution, within the field of Information Technology.
Within the field of Business and Information Technology (IT) a Solution is defined as some combination of tangible and/or intangible product(s) that address a business problem.
Currently, there is a redirection from Chemical Solution to Solution. I believe that the redirection should be from Solution to Chemical Solution and to Business Solution. The redirection from Chemical Solution to Solution be removed so the article that is currently in Solution reside on the Chemical Solution article. This will accomodate these two terms and refer to the appropriate term in the appropriate field.-- Davidmarten223 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I am new to the
WikiProject Chemistry, so please correct me if this is not the right place to discuss this. I noticed the new WikiProject Chemistry info boxes on the talk pages of chemistry articles and think they are a great addition. My question is: if there is no rating for quality or importance scale yet, may I add one if I feel I know the topic well enough? Or should I discuss it first? Where? On the talk page of the corresponding article or rather on this page here? In case of the
phosphate article I suggest an importance level of 'mid'. Thanks, --
Splette
Talk
17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You may know that I have been tagging the element talk pages, and adding assessments. I chose to classify the common elements like oxygen and iron as "Top-importance". As for the others, I figured that just by being an element (and thus a basic building block of chemistry), any of the others should rank as "High" importance. Is this OK? Or do you think elements like promethium should be only Mid? Feedback please? Thanks, Walkerma 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to update the Chemistry COTM this month for two reasons.
Please help out by contributing. ~K 17:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Our good friend caffeine is now featured, but still lacks the first total synthesis by E. Fischer!-- Stone 13:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys
We don't have an article (or I haven't found one) on PPh3O yet. It's pretty ubiquitous, appearing often when triphenylphosphine is used in reactions. Is it worthy of a full article? Or a section in triphenylphosphine and a redirect to that page?
-- Rifleman 82 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a long-running dispute concerning whether uranium trioxide gas is a combustion product of uranium. I have found an expert, Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle, with 45 years of experience in the subject, who claims that the research literature I have cited indicates that the gas is a combustion product. A handful of editors stridently opposing me have for several months claimed that the gas is not a combustion product, without any sources supporting that point of view. I ask that a neutral third party WikiProject participant please phone or email Dr. Alexander, at the number and/or address given at Talk:Uranium trioxide#Discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, and ask him for the reasons he feels that the sources cited there support his and my view that uranium trioxide gas is a combustion product of uranium, and share his responses with all on Talk:Uranium trioxide. Thanks in advance. LossIsNotMore 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mion started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Hydrogen, see also Hydrogen technologies. He created a number of categories and templates, like the monstrous Template:Sustainability and energy development group now on TfD.
Unfortunately I've got the impression, that his knowledge in the area is rather limited and his actions, as well-intended they may be, will make the affected articles worse, not better. In the moment, I'm struggling with his intentions to classify the osmosis cell as a fuel cell. He gives sources like a "PC magazine encyclopedia of IT terms" and the OED. Ouch.
Anyone interested to check his contris?
Pjacobi 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I could use some help reverting POV in the Combinatorial chemistry article. I posted the origonal POV edit on the talk page. Thanks, ~K 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, i have checked to this article as reference to my study but i found it a little bit confusing, could someone please enhance it or take a look at it?, I believe this article requires rephrasing some concepts to be easily understood for users non familiar with the topic.Cheers -- HappyApple 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
New here, but just noticed on the information panels for gases (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide ) it gives density information, quoting relevant temperature. Shouldn't these also quote pressure? (I presume they're at 10000 Pa?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.121.243 ( talk • contribs)
Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. -- Kingboyk 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC) PS You have a bug in your template: It's displaying a stray bracket at the end:
![]() | Chemistry Project‑class | ||||||
|
As far as I can tell we don't have an article on Diamagnetic anisotropy. Anyone want to take a stab at it? I don't know anything about the subject matter myself, merely that someone who does know about it thinks that there is a large oversight in not having any information on it. -- 69.138.178.196 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI: There are a few chemical stubs are up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_25#1-Methylindole.2C_2-Bromo-1-chloropropane_and_5-Methylindole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olin ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 September 2006.
Earlier today I made an effort to improve the parabens article which was a real mess. There is a bit of controversy about the safety of parabens and I tried to cut out much of the commentary from both points of view. I did a bit of research and included references to some of the more relevant scientific studies representing both sides. I feel I made a vast improvement to the article, but shortly afterwards an anon IP came in and copy-and-pasted much of the older stuff back in, with edit summaries referring to my edits as " borderline vandalism" and "POV pushing". I realize that as a scientist I have a certain perspective, but can others please look at the article and help keep the article neutral and encyclopedic? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgar181 ( talk • contribs)
Hello, There are two different editors which are both erasing entire sections of this article. Please oversight the history page and article.
I am a new user that does not know what to do in this situation. I think removing large sections of the parabens article may be vandalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Parabens&diff=78477710&oldid=78447944 Thank You. -- 63.17.32.188 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
my comments:
V8rik 20:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I respectively disagee with some of Walkerma comments. Ed ERASED large portions of the parabens article and replaced it with his own one-sided BIAS preferred version. He erased information I constructively contributed to which my info is 100% Wikipedic. I have added information back to balance the article instead of the one-sided POV pushing at best and/or vandalism at worst. It is reasonable to tell the TRUTH. Check the history pages of the Parabens article for the clear EVIDENCE!!! -- 63.17.95.220 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)