User talk:Chem Sim 2001

General information about the usage of this page

In general, everybody is allowed to leave a message on this page. Conditions are:

Please always sign your new sections or edits. See Wikipedia:Signatures
Please always leave your message, where you or I have started the discussion, if neccassary, ping me Template:Reply to
If you have any suggestions or improvements for my work, you can leave a message here! But please be fair and constructive in order not to offend anyone!
Archived sections are manually moved to the appropriate archive: 2019 | 2020

ME

As far as I know, patents are not considered reliable sources here. They can be pretty strange. So I revised your mercaptoethanol edit with a citation to Ullmann's Encyclopedia. If you can get that source, you will be very empowered. It is just incredible, especially if you have an interest in technical chemistry. It of course is a German product. It probably costs a lot to see. Since I work at a university, I get free access. If you are unhappy with my interference, say so and we can probably work it out. With very best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Hey there! No problem, I'm always open-minded for criticism about my work. I'm glad that there are people who inform me about such important things here since I normally work on the German Wikipedia. When it comes to the Ullmann's Encyclopedia article, I don't have free access to it. I have to pay 42$ for one article (that's why I only possess four articles of Ullmann's). But thanks for leaving my reaction equation in the article! Regards, Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you get a chance to visit a nearby university, you can check out Ullmann's (and even download some chapters).

Since I am picky, I will say that our official manual of style recommends no words in any graphic. That way your eq can be used in other language wiki's. Many people violate this rule, so it is more of a goal or a wish. The rule originates from Angewandte Chemie, a journal which prints both German and English versions. In any case, good luck and let me know if I can look up some detail for you.

BTW, we need a good LD50 for ME. I bet that it is faily nontoxic. It is interesting that it has almost no use outside of biochem.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Wow, thanks for your offer, I will contact you if I need some detail information about a certain topic! Referred to the LD-50 value for mercaptoethanol, it's quite toxic. On the German wikipedia, we use datasheets from "GESTIS-Stoffdatenbank" and I found that mercaptoethanol has a LD-50 (oral, rat) value of 244 mg/kg and a LD-50 (dermal, rabbit) 167 mg/kg. The information is from here. I hope that this will help you. Best regards, Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup/confirmation for "patents are not considered reliable sources here", that is part of the Verifiability Policy here on the English site. See WP:PATENTS. DMacks (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I understand, thanks for the information! Best regards, Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop undoing PNG-to-SVG replacements

I noticed you reverted my changes to this and this page. I'd like to hear your justification for this regression, and no, pNg vErSIoNs hAvE a rIgHt tO eXiST! is NOT a valid justification. Alhadis (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chem Sim 2001 Right, it's been a week. If you won't explain why you felt this change was necessary, I'm reverting it. Consider this my last efforts at avoiding an edit war; ignore me, and I've no choice but to interpret your silence as tacit approval. Alhadis (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alhadis: The reasons why I reverted your edits are stated on your talk page on Commons and are supported by various other users in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. There is no - and absolutely no - sense in vectorizing an already high-quality PNG file with transparent background, drawn according to MoS and in very high resolution. I'm totally aware of the many advantages that SVG files have and I'm exclusively uploading SVG files of chemical structures to Commons, however, one should respect the individual choice of the respective user to use PNG as file format. And as long as the PNG file is of very high-quality and resolution, there is no sense in vectorizing it and replacing all its use cases. For example, look at the uploaded files of DMacks. He uses PNG as the file format, but all of his uploads are of very high quality, have a transparent background etc. Is it then justified to vectorize all of his structures and nominate them for deletion or remove them from the use cases, respectively? No, it's not. And as Leyo already told you, we have hundreds, or even thousands of low-quality PNG, GIF, JPG etc. files on Commons, that really need a vectorization. As an example, c:File:SavitskyGolaySmoothing.png would need a vectorization, and afterwards, this low-quality file can be deleted. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chem Sim 2001 Yes, I'm now aware of what images to focus on vectorising. But what are you seeking to accomplish by reverting my "senseless" edits? Are you actually going to go through the literally thousands of changes I've made where a PNG was replaced by an SVG version, reverting each one that doesn't appear to be an improvement in visual fidelity? Where's the sense in that?

Look, I'll limit my vectorisation of chemistry-related media to those in the low-quality diagrams category, but only if you stop reverting these damn edits. Deal? Alhadis (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alhadis: Deal, I will not revert your edits anymore. But please focus on the really low-quality files. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will. Hopefully you won't consider my efforts moronic like you did here. Also, just for the record: I know next-to-nothing about chemistry, so whatever the appropriate drawing software for chemical structures might be, I probably wouldn't know how to use it. I'm a graphic designer, not a chemist. Alhadis (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alhadis:Knowing nothing about chemistry might be not a good prerequisite to vectorize chemical structures and reaction equations, especially when they are factually incorrect or need to be represented in a totally different way. In these cases, simple vectorization of the image would not resolve the issue, but instead create a still factually incorrect structure, only in a better quality. In addition, many low quality files on Commons were not drawn using professional drawing software like ChemDraw. This often resulted in e.g. incorrect bond angles (single, double and triple bonds need to have different bond angles) and many other inconsistencies. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chem Sim 2001 Hence why I strive to preserve as much of the existing diagram as possible, deferring the matter of accuracy to whoever the original author was. If that means I've wasted my time vectorising a bad-quality image, so be it, but as long as the original image gets deleted for inaccuracy too, I don't mind. I can't use ChemDraw because it's commercial software (and I'm broke), so unless there's a FOSS solution for molecule drawing, I'll have to stick with my usual weapons of choice. Alhadis (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]