User talk:OMCV

Electrolysis system

Hi OMCV, could you have a look at the newly created Electrolysis system ? And feel free with it. Thanks Mion (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Hydride compressor looks pretty good but it would be nice to have a paper or some official published work as a reference. Frankly I don't know much about the subject but I've seen this suggested in a bunch of different places. I'll keep my eyes open or going looking if I have any time.--OMCV (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OMCV. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 02:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ^talk 02:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, OMCV. You have new messages at 218.186.9.231's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm assuming that it's ok to put all of these template into 1 section. Sorry if this is not good practice. 218.186.9.231 (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm...second reply? 218.186.9.231 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Inert gas

Nice work. Rklawton (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I really wish I had a good reference for this page but much of synthetic knowledge is passed along as a vernacular tradition. A vernacular tradition that is never transformed into an artifact, at least not an artifact we would call a WP:RS.--OMCV (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A recipe for trouble

I've come to realize that engaging with Brews ohare (and now, with David Tombe) is a very risky business. The reason why they're under arbitration sanction is that they have historically demonstrated an unproductive approach to dispute resolution, along with some very poor judgement with respect to knowing when to disengage from disputes. We're seeing that unfortunate tendency to keep digging while in trouble now. While I appreciate your (entirely correct!) observation that Brews is being unreasonable in getting upset that I misread his insult as a different insult than the one he intended, I would strongly urge you to let this one go. As long as Brews (and David) keep their unpleasantness confined to their talk pages, I'm inclined to let the matter lie. The extra attention on Brews isn't helpful; some editors can't resist the temptation to post immediately whenever they see their bright orange new-messages bar light up. 'The last word' is a seductive siren whose lure we must, from time to time, resist.

I see the existing arbitration restrictions on Brews as having two purposes. The first, and most important, is to allow other editors to carry on editing articles without the disruptive effects of his interminable argument. That's accomplished, I think, by encouraging strict enforcement of his editing restrictions (the topic ban and conduct probation) to minimize the damage and disruption if he strays into areas where he's had trouble before. The second purpose – again, as I see it – is to give an editor who has useful qualifications and who has made significant contributions to Wikipedia a final opportunity to demonstrate that he can work effectively with the community. I earnestly hope that if he is left alone on his talk page that he will eventually rant himself out, and when he gets bored he will find useful things to do that aren't simply refighting the battles that let to the arbitration case. (The alternative is that he doesn't move on, in which case he will exhaust his three strikes and be fully banned.)

On a side note, it's unfortunate that Count Iblis has taken the approach that he has to trying to rehabilitate Brews in the community. While I believe the Count's intentions are good, he's encouraging Brews to remain involved in the same conflicts that turned out so badly. Count Iblis' cart-before-the-horse approach to reform also displays a very unhelpful selective blindness: User talk:Count Iblis#Dangerous advice. It is unlikely in the extreme that the ArbCom would lift or modify Brews' restrictions until he has demonstrated efforts towards improving his relationships with other editors, yet Iblis persists in the unrealistic expectation that the community will ask for exactly this on Brews' behalf. I fear that as long as Brews finds any support or endorsement for his conduct, he is unlikely to change. In the nearly three weeks since the speed of light arbitration closed, Brews has made nearly five hundred edits. Of those, nine minor edits to article space and three edits to article talk (one a topic ban violation). Far from earning an easing of his restrictions, Brews is working rapidly towards a motion to extend and expand his restrictions to include Wikipedia policy space. It's a mess, and neither Brews nor Iblis seems to grasp the problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It seems I have demonstrated some bad judgment in getting involved in such a pointless conversation. I came across the discussion while looking at pages related to Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles and the absurdity of the conversational tone forced me to check the facts. I think its time for me to get back to writing some actual content which will keep me out of any silly conflicts.--OMCV (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What a ridiculous nonsense. What has happened is that Arbcom decided to ban Prof. John R Brews from editing all physics related pages, including the ones on which he made outstanding contributions. Yes, he was disruptive in some respects and a ban from only the speed of light related pages would have been more than enough. But Arbcom treated him as some physics crank, which he is not, presumably because the Arbitrators know little about physics.

Then, of course, he would either leave or be peripherically involved in Wikipedia. For Wikipedia to demand that he does this or that to get his topic ban lifted is just ridiculous. If Brews now is involved in policy pages and we would like him to edit regular articles, why then not simply admit that we made a mistake by banning a physics/engineering professor from all physics pages and modify the topic ban accordingly?

Note that some trouble makers on the Obama related pages were only banned from those specific pages, not from all politics pages. And we're not exactly talking about political science professors here from whome we can expect many outstanding edits. No, these are just trouble makers who are tolerated on Wikipedia because some Admins will share some of their political beliefs while recognizing that there has been disruption. They will be lenient.

All this suggests to me that User:RickK was perhaps right when he left Wikipedia:

There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do.

There is no reason to continue here. RickK 04:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Count Iblis (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps also say that before the Arbcom case when Brews was arguing about his point about the speed of light, I together with most other editors, strongly disputed the point he was trying to make. So, I'm backing Brews purely because the topic ban makes no sense, certainly not because I agreed with his edits on the speed of light page. Also, the topic ban causes Brews to not edit any articles anymore. Comments on his talk page to stop editing policy talk pages by some involved editor on that policy talk page understandably causes irritation which then can lead to stupid conflicts. Analyzing such conflicts to see who made what insult first is such a ridiculous waste of time, completely irrelevant to the real problem here. Count Iblis (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Commented on my talk page. Count — please try to indent threaded discussions properly, and please put the stick down and back away from the horse. OMCV — sorry the can of worms spread to your talk. I won't be offended if you ignore or delete anything else that shows up here. For what it's worth, I'm not going to respond to anything more that Iblis posts here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Count: you made a good point that the discussion on your page should end and I thank you for the comment. I was going to mention that there but its one of those times when I figured another comment was bound to work out bad and I thought it respectful to let you have the last word.

Ten: Don't worry about the situation. Furthermore I think your approach to ignoring the situation as much as possible is commendable, I should have followed you lead. I take full responsibility for getting myself involved. For what its worth the Count and I haven't ever gotten lost in protracted discussions. We might not agree but we understand each is coming from honest positions of good faith.

Frankly I don't/didn't know very much about Brews although its clear he has made some wonderful diagrams. Now that I had a chance to google him (thanks to the full name) I feel bad about pointing out short comings in the arguments of a an individual soon to be emeritus. Then again not pointing out the short comings would be condescending. As Ten points out if Brews just relaxed he would probably already be editing pages again. I don't have even a superficial understanding of what happened at the Speed of Light. I do know that of the editors I've had conflicts with most of them have ultimately been banned without my participation in any disciplinary proceedings. Even editors I support like ScienceApologist seem to be sanction in appropriate ways. Such experience has lead me to believe the dispute resolution system functions well. Thus my natural inclination is to trust the system. I hope that Brews can get back to a productive situation but fighting the system won't further that goal. Its to bad even he won't play ball even if he's been sanctioned with to heavy of a hand.--OMCV (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reported for vandalism

I have reported you to moderation for vandalism. Read the WikiPedia guidelines. --Desertphile (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being proactive in attempting to resolve a dispute. You are right. You didn't vandalize, it was a good faith edit and I should have acknowledged that, but the content you added still needed to be removed. Please referrer to WP:RS specifically the material regarding self-publication. I sympathize with your position, one of my early edits was a diatribe against water fuel devices that I posted on the electrolysis of water but it was removed because it violated WP:OR. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources, I've been hoping a major news outlet would do a news story on these scam artists especially the the crocks at IHS. Not to worry next time the price of fuel goes up this will again become major news and perhaps a reliable third party will expose a few of these scam artists.--OMCV (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstand. I thought, you thought, I accused you of vandalism. You haven't reported me either I checked your history by going to Toolbox and clicking on "User contribustions" when I was on you user page. If you do want to report me you would go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow the advice there. Don't look to me for help on the best way to report me, I find the whole process terrible confusing every time I get involved with it. Regardless welcome to wikipedia I hope you can familize your self and adopt our best practices, we are trying to make an encyclopedia that covers notable material WP:NOTE from a neural point of view WP:NPOV based on reliable WP:RS and verifiable WP:V sources.--OMCV (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Watershed border

No problem. New input is never a bad thing. It's not obvious (but interesting) that the province border matches a basin border. Everything flows away from the spine of the Rockies. Much further down in the text, in the "Watershed" section, we spell it out as "To the northeast, mostly along the southern border between British Columbia and Alberta, the Continental Divide separates the Columbia watershed from the Nelson-Lake Winnipeg-Saskatchewan watershed, which empties into Hudson Bay." This article was a fairly great beast to do and involved quite a few editors and all sorts of complications (many of them interesting). Finetooth (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

BF3 Back bonding

Hey OMCV.. The Wiki page for Boron Trifloride states that the shorter B-F bond length can be attributed to a pi-bond like structure, which effectively means the formation of a back-bond between Boron and Fluorine. BF3 is also given in my course boks as an example of back bonding. Could you please give me a more elaborate explanation as to why you would not call that a back bond??

  Oh, and why remove the layman's understanding of the back bonding concept? 

Darshit 15:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of BF3, boron is the Lewis acid and florine is the Lewis base and what we might commonly consider a "ligand". Ligands can bond through sigma or pi orbital structure. The vast majority of ligands are at the very least sigma donors. The pi-structure is less clear cut, many ligands are pi donors but there are also pi acceptors. An example of a pi-donor is F-; with its full octet F- can donate through a sigma orbital as well as pi orbitals when the Lewis acid has empty orbitals of the proper symmetry. In contrast a variety of ligands will donate electron density through a sigma orbital and accept electron density through a pi system. Many people think this happens with phosphines. A specific subset of pi-accepting ligands accept the electron density into an one of the ligand's empty anti-bonding. For the classic example of M-CO that means an increase in the M-C bond strength with a decrease in the C-O bond strength.

Your layman's definition has a number of issues.

At lower levels it can be understood that due to deficiency of electron(s), an atom again forms bond with the atom to which it is already bonded, this bond will be a pπ - pπ overlap (or can be pπ - dπ or dπ - dπ overlap) in order to stablize the deficiency of electrons. This is called back bonding. A most common example in in the BF₃ molecule.

To begin At lower levels is ambiguous language when discussion orbitals in which "lower", "higher", and even "levels" are specific terms. Its very unclear what has a deficiency of electron(s). You then continue to describe a "pi bond" accurately, including the derivations involving d orbitals. The problem is that not all pi bonds are examples of backbonding, for example the B-F bond in BF3. Please check your course book again if it truly gives B-F as an example of backbonding please give me the name of your professor and I'll write them an e-mail.--OMCV (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, OMCV. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of East Ridge (Wolf's Head) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article East Ridge (Wolf's Head) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ridge (Wolf's Head) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

¡Ayvind! (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of East Buttress (Middle Cathedral) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article East Buttress (Middle Cathedral) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Buttress (Middle Cathedral) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Northeast Face (Pingora) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Northeast Face (Pingora) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Face (Pingora) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Southeast Face (Clyde Minaret) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southeast Face (Clyde Minaret) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southeast Face (Clyde Minaret) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)