User talk:Physchim62/Archive 2008

Template for InChIs

Could you take a look at Bromocresol purple, which is one I fixed from ChemSpiderMan's list of errors? I put in your lovely template, but it is so long it intrudes into the chembox. I wonder if you could add a "small=yes" type parameter to allow it to be in small font ()? If not, can you suggest something? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just tried it in Internet Explorer 6.0, as it works OK. The only failsafe fix for this would be to place a <br clear="all"/> just before the box, so that it always starts on a new line: I shall wait for further input before making this change. Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Have just tried on Firefox 2.0 and have got the wrapping problem you describe. Physchim62 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arsenicum album

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 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Inniscrone/Enniscrone

Hi. As someone who has edited the Inniscrone and/or Enniscrone page recently, you may be interested in this. Regards, --The.Q^(t)(c) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Balearic Sea Vs. Catalan Sea

Hi there Physchim. I sadly have to tell you that user Toniher together with a new member (an annon user) of the CAT team have started reverting and vandalising another article such as Països Catalans. I know that you are also browned-off with these matters, but you know very well that if an admin is not around, this team freely starts reverting and undoing fully referenced matters. Every editor has expressed their opinion towards "Balearic Sea" (which is the name internationally accepted), but hese 2 users keep reverting to "Catalan Sea"

If you are not willing to participate anymore (something I understand after how they treated you), may you please at least report this matter to other admins in order to prevent another edit warring over the article?

Thanks in advance. And happy new year (a month late). --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Verbbox french

A tag has been placed on Template:Verbbox french requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Ourense municipalities

A tag has been placed on Template:Ourense municipalities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Chembox/RSPhrases

A tag has been placed on Template:Chembox/RSPhrases requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Chembox/S298

A tag has been placed on Template:Chembox/S298 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Chembox/ThermoSuppl

A tag has been placed on Template:Chembox/ThermoSuppl requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Montserrat_virgin.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Montserrat_virgin.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The image is now redundant to Image:Verge.jpg and should be deleted; thanks for reminding me! Physchim62 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NFPA diamonds

I hope this isn't a red rag to a bull, but as you consider how to clean up safety data on WP you may want to look at Talk:Manganese_dioxide#NFPA_Rating. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:GFDL-presumed-ca

Template:GFDL-presumed-ca has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Question on ozone

It seems you have a working knowledge of physics, and are interested in ozone... What creates Ozone (o3) and is it a finite "resource"? This started by a friend emailing an article from Georgetown on the rate of melanoma and new treatments for same... It got me thinking about what correlation the sunworshipping of the last 40 years and the rate of ozone depletion both have on the astronomical increase in melanoma... I think of "natural resources" like oil as being finite, for all practical purposes. Thanks... Curious.

Fair use rationale for Image:Bandera Sant Feliu de Codines.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bandera Sant Feliu de Codines.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia España

Hi, just to check if you are aware of the revival of WM España we are trying now. If interested go to [1] cheers, Gaianauta (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware, but I'm interested in helping out as far as I can. Physchim62 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Subpage talk redirects

I share your concern over the talk page redirects deleted by MZMcBride. I am restoring the ones I had created, but this time I am going to categorize them with {{R to documentation}}. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Double block by Pilotguy

Regarding your arbcom request statement, wasn't the second block just an adjustment of the initial block? Have a look here: (1) "account creation blocked, e-mail blocked" then (2) "fix email block which I believe was made by accident" then (3) "autoblock disabled". What I find strange is that Tawker didn't reblock as the block log implies he was going to do (I've read there was an IRC "discussion" raging at the time), and that the reblock was eventually 11 minutes later, by Pilotguy again. I think the unblock and second block are strange, but irrelevant compared to the first block. That is the one that really needs explaining. I didn't like the way MzMcBride responded to finding that talk page of threads about his deletions, but it wasn't something to block over. I do wonder though whether the block did affect MZMcBride's subsequent actions for the better. I guess we will never know. That's not a support for the block, by the way. I had no interest in blocking or unblocking, since MZMcBride had his own fate in his own hands at all times. Carcharoth (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think MZMcBride acted stupidly, if not obsessively, in that we seem to agree. However, Pilotguy blocked indefinitely, and in the first case even blocked email contact… Far more than was necessary to resolve the problem, or even wait for discussion… ArbCom has previously sanctioned admins for much less, and I am interested as to whether they will do so in this case. At the very least, it should be a lesson for all admins against knee-jerk reactions. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFAR?! What the hell is the point of that, are you trying to create more drama? We always block malfunctioning bots indefinitely, then they are unblocked when the problem is fixed. Do I really have to point out to you that "indefinite" does not mean "infinite"? --Cyde Weys 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things. Infinite blocks are rare (though I have seen them in the block log). It is more normal for indefinite blocks to be used both for permanent blocks of throwaway and abusive accounts, and for short-term "what shall we do here" situations (when it is unclear what block length is needed). In this case, I disagree that a block was needed in the first place, but I agree with Cyde that if the scripted deletions had started up again, the account should have been treated like a bot. The second point, about the filing of the arbcom case, is that Physchim was, IIRC, desysopped (or resigned, can't remember which) as the result of an arbcom case. In light of that, when he says things like "ArbCom has previously sanctioned admins for much less", it is natural to think that might be what he is referring to. I actually sympathise with him if he feels that this case is similar to his, but this is not the way to go about it. If this is not the case, Physchim, please accept my apologies. Carcharoth (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is "resigned under contraversial circumstances" ;) Nevertheless, I have a certain record (from well before that particular case) of opposing blocks which I think are excessive in the circumstances, and of rejecting the idea of "automatic sanctions" as an excuse for admins who don't want to have to think about their actions. If I happen to expose the hypocrisy of certain people who claim to represent the Wikipedia community, the sobeit, but I have much better things to do with my time than to make that a primary goal! Physchim62 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Chem disclaimer

Template:Chem disclaimer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia España

Hola como te he visto colaborar en este proyecto vengo a pedirte una ayudita. Me gustaría dejar un mensaje de aviso en la wiki de en: de los comienzos del capítulo, lo que pasa es que mi inglés es un poco flojo, para traducir a español me va muy bien pero para redactar en inglés no tira tanto. Si tienes un momento para poner el aviso te lo agradecería. Saludos.Elisardojm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.117.4 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

HeH+ acidity

Hi, I see that, a long time ago, you added a thermodynamic cycle for the calculation of the aqueous acidity of HeH+. Did you find that cycle somewhere, or did you create it yourself from the data? I see a couple of problems with the cycle. 1) It is missing the term for the solvation of HeH+ itself. While I could deduce the value from the difference between the calculated aqueous acidity and the sum of the other three values given in the cycle, I wonder where it came from, because otherwise it would be like going in circles. 2) The solvation of He says "estimated from solubility data". Estimated by whom? Which solubility data was used? --Itub (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of chemical elements discoveries

I have posted a sort of poll on its talk-page. Please leave your opinions. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hydrochloric acid FAR

Hydrochloric acid has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Victor Tilgner

Hello there,

I noticed that you were the only person to have their name listed next to the "what links here" of the (redlink) article Victor Tilgner(sometimes spelled with a "K"). I was wondering if you knew anything about him or his travels as there is very little information available here in Sydney Australia. I'm trying to find out whether he ever visited Sydney - could you help? Apparently his influence raised the standard of sculpture in Sydney at the turn of the century. One of his sculptures is supposed to be in Sydney. Do you know of any sources for Viktor Tilgner that would say whether (and when) he came to Australia? Thanks, Witty Lama 05:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar

Ah, not used to people saying that one around here. My bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousopus (talk • contribs) 10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding recall...

Just a note regarding the Durova case -- you're remembering correctly that someone said "recall has no standing", but that was a single arbitrator's comment on the workshop page. The actual final decision did not consider the issue at all. The committee has a whole has taken no position on the issue (yet). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydrochloric acid is in dire need of some refs

Hi PC,

the Hydrochloric acid article, one of the first FA articles of WP:Chem is under FAR now regarding the 1c criterion (in-line referencing). At the time, you contributed significantly to the article. Would you please now too step in and add some explicit references to the sections with limited referencing? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Redirect

Hi, there,

I am new to Wikipedia, and don't understand why you re-directed the oscillatory baffled reactor pages. Please help.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitech2008 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just found out how to sign, and hope this time is correct.

Thanks,--Nitech2008 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Manganese(II)manganate(VI)

Heya PC

Related discussion at User talk:Itub. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I just wanted to thank you very much for participating at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#list_of_top_singles. Not that the conversation is closed, matter resolved, everyone happy, but I really do appreciate your adding intelligent, informed and civil commentary to the thread. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the entire section in question; and materials that may be promotional.

I shall however emphasize that there are over 300 published journal papers on the science and application of OBR. OBR is used in undergraduate teaching, lab projects and research in Chemical Engineering departments (some chemistry departments as well) in the UK. The intention of putting it in the wikipedia is not for promotional purpose. I would welcome views on the updated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitech2008 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

When I search "oscillatory baffled reactor" in Wikipedia, it does not come up. Please help. Thanks.--Nitech2008 (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Four Winds Press

I take it you never got any books from any of Scholastic's book clubs (Lucky Book Club, Arrow Book Club, Tab Book Club) while you were in school? Zephyrad (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, no, I'm British! If you disagree with the PROD, simply remove it, but please try to improve the article at (roughly) the same time! Physchim62 (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I have read your user page, and I completely see where you're coming from on the "mob rule" and "trolls" matters. I am seeing more of my longstanding articles come under attack recently (and me with them), and I have to wonder sometimes why I even bother. (I teach school by day, and most of the comments I get on here, the proposals I read, and the reasoning displayed behind both, aren't very different from those made by ill-behaved children who resent being reminded there are still things they do not know, or cannot do.)

If I were twenty years younger, and could spend whole days researching and writing, I'd be quite happy to give umpteen references for everything from "the sky is blue" to "everybody farts on occasion", to satisfy the demand. As it is, I work full time, and write or edit articles here in my spare time, based on what I find lacking during my own Web searches. If someone wants to join in, what's stopping them from doing the looking-up, or locating the sources, they say they want to see so badly? (In the immediate case, it's geography. You're excused.)

I get very tired of having to listen to complaints (and AfD proposals) from young people in particular, who apparently cannot be bothered to do more than a two-minute Google search, then decide "Uhp, never heard of it, wasn't there, isn't important, get rid of it". (I maintain, if such people spent half the time researching unsourced material on Wikipedia as they do complaining, Wikipedia would be more detailed and reliable than the Brittanica.)

I am not calling you such a person; the very tone of your reply to my query would shoot that down instantly if I did, and right now I'm not sure where I'm headed with this. (Well, other than thanking you for your candor and lack of poor attitude, and not running off crying to a sysop or AN/I when I questioned where you were coming from.) I can probably think of more effective things to say, after I've had a good night's sleep. So I'll leave off here. Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

publisher articles

For those publisher articles where the article is about a division or imprint of a major publisher with an article, it should be better to merge. If the information is already there in full, then redirect. But not delete. I've removed those prods. I'm not sure about the smaller independent publishers--typically there is information, but it's hard to extract this from Google because of the material about the books. I'm trying to think of a suitable way of finding these. I would suggest that at least any publisher with more than one author having a Wikipedia article where at least one of the books is a best-seller is likely to be notable, but I have not yet removed those prods. DGG (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC nomenclature question

Hi, I think I remember you were interested in matters of nomenclature. Perhaps you could take a look at the debate at User talk:Plasmic Physics#Trilithium.281.2B.29_Ion_Azanetriide (with bits and pieces at User talk:Smokefoot and User talk:Axiosaurus)? --Itub (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

oh Gawd. Thanks for letting me know about this one. There have been several edits of the same type recently, which are IUPAC pedantry gone wild (and incorrect as well). Physchim62 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the IUPAC names that is inserted? They are the correct names sugested by the IUPAC directly rather than the code book.Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how you would distinguish between Li₃⁺ and (Li⁺)₃. At the same time, you could quote us the IUPAC references for your inclusion of the word "ion" and your use of capital letters. I wouldn't normally use such a condescending tone, but you've brought it upon yourself. Physchim62 (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I don’t believe we have crossed paths before. I just wanted to drop by and leave a quick note of ‘thanks’ for your help on Kilogram. It is much better off as a result of our collaborative efforts. Greg L (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you approve! There's still something that seems (to me) to jar in that second paragraph of the "Carbon-12" section though. It seems to get its knickers in a twist over the consequences of fixing one of the two constants…

• If the Avogadro constant is defined, the current X-ray crystal density experiments – the most precise direct determinations of the Avogadro constant – effectively become determinations of the Planck constant. The uncertainty is 2.5 times higher than for other methods at the moment, but it is possible that this could be improved, especially given the advances over the last 10–15 years or so.
• It the Planck constant is defined (as it already is for practical measurements in electricity), the uncertainty in the Avogadro constant would immediately be reduced 40-fold, to around 1 ppb. There could well be further improvements in the future, it would depend on the fine structure constant and the electron relative mass (see my recent edits to Avogadro constant for details). The "uncertainty in the mass of the carbon-12 atom" as you put it – or rather the uncertainty in the kilogram equivalent of the atomic mass unit – would obviously drop by the same proportion as the drop in u(N_A).

Now how to saw all that in an already long section with getting overly technical nor straying too far from the line of argument… I think I might go and do something simpler like rewrite atomic mass instead! ;) Physchim62 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I take comfort that you are tying to keep these interrelationships straight in your head. I know that if there is a brain-fart in the article, you’ll find it. I’ve long corresponded with the guy who does the NIST watt balance experiments while writing the article to check facts and get directed to scientific papers. Perhaps that biases me a bit, but I think fixing the Planck constant and defining the kilogram in terms of a sum of the frequencies of photons is the way to go in the long run. Photons are nice: they don’t come in different isotopes, and their frequencies can be measured with obscene precision and stability. And unlike a cylinder of platinum that might be absorbing atmospheric mercury or a silicon sphere which has an oxide coating that might be changing, photons twenty years from now will be precisely the same as today’s. The trick with the watt balance is largely a matter of tracking down the mechanical bugs that interfere with the translation from the theoretical world to a practical delineation (uncured epoxy in coils, etc.). Last I checked (a few months ago), the watt balance was throwing the researcher a curve ball when he dropped down from one-kilogram masses to 500-gram masses (some sort of non-linearity that had gone unnoticed). Greg L (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the CIPM agrees with you about the kilogram and the Planck constant, skimming through the minutes of their 2007 meeting. So do I for that matter, although I count for somewhat less in these things! I'll probably try to thrash something out at mole (unit), which needs a lot of attention anyway: if there's anything that needs reworking on kilogram, we can come back to it later. Physchim62 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

List of parties to international copyright agreements

Hi, thanks for your comments. I think it's better named as "agreements," for several reasons.

First, titling it "treaties" is inaccurate in the US, although accurate in other English-speaking regions. But all treaties are inherently international agreements, even in jurisdictions that don't make a distinction between the two. By using "agreements," it's accurate for all jurisdictions. A title that is accurate for all jurisdictions is more appropriate than a title that is inaccurate for the U.S., a jurisdiction that comprises a substantial amount of the English-speaking world.

Second, even in those jurisdictions that consider "treaties" and "international agreements" to be interchangeably synonymous, the fact the the US distinguishes between them is still material to those jurisdictions. They have agreements with the U.S., some of which may be canceled by the U.S. by no more than a simple enactment of a statute, without requiring abrogation of the treaty. That's a distinction worth noting even in those jurisdictions that do not consider them to be different things for purposes of their own legal interpretation.

It's also consistent with the way the instruments are named. The agreements are captioned as agreements in international recognition of the distinction (e.g., the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; the now-irrelevant North American Free Trade Agreement). Treaties are generally called out as "Treaties" or Conventions." If the international community recognizes the distinction, and reflects that in how the instruments themselves are named, I think the article should, as well.

If you still disagree, let's discuss it on the article's talk page. If I'm being a wild hare and the consensus is that the article should be entitled with "Treaties," I will have no objection whatsoever to moving it back. TJRC (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Avogadro

I really think you ought to give an explanation of this major deletion from the Avogadro constant on the article talk page. SpinningSpark 07:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you bring it up on the article talk page, I shall do :). Physchim62 (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

One mole of marshmallows would have a mass of 17 exatonnes, enough to cover up the whole Earth approximately 100 km (60miles) deep

Hi, I was wondering why the marshmallow picture here was removed from the Mole page. I really like the example given along with it...in the caption; was it incorrect and thus edited out? Shouldn't the statement alone be fixed if that's the case (i.e. prove the math involved)? Or was it in violation of a copyright law? I have this as a wallpaper, btw. It's cool-looking.

PS: That's not the only reference to marshmallows on the page, so it could be put back with the simple caption of "Some marshmallows" or "Only a few of the marshmallows that will cover the world when they have their way..." you get the rest. Those marshmallows might try to take over the world, you never know ;)

Sincerely,

Exprice (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your tweaks

Thanks, no complaint from me.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GA nom at Kilogram

Did you really intend this edit to use subtopic=Biology and medicine? LeadSongDog (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

errm, "no" is the quick reply to that! let me take a look and see what's gone wrong… Physchim62 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What I typed was "subtopic=Natural sciences". During the subst procedure, the subtopic was changed to "Biology and medicine", which is the first lower-level heading under "Natural sciences". Bloody bureaucracy if ever there was any! This is why I rarely get involved in GA/FA topics, but I happen to think that kilogram deserves it, despite the reservations of certain editors (myself included) about various minor aspects of the article. Physchim62 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I copied all of the GA nomination stuff to my talk page and left only your original post on Talk:Kilogram. There’s no use in preemptively and publicly spitting in anyone’s eyes; I ought to give them a fair chance to prove me wrong. And the following is that last bit of spit:

• Looking at the examples, that’s about what I feared/expected. We’ll see. I don’t plan on watching the goings-on over there (better for mental health, blood pressure, and cholesterol, I think). Let me know if there’s some reasonable-sounding suggestions that won’t validate my already jaundiced prejudices on this issue. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hard to miss. Right there on the talk page. Not as bad as I feared either. He seems reasonable and helpful enough. Greg L (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Acrylamide Edits

You are welcome, Jim. I very much appreciate your being a gracious editor, and, of course, your having taken the time to express thanks.

Mass *constancy*

Physchim62: As you know, Stephen Hawking explained that there is no net mass/energy in the universe; that the Big Bang sort of ‘stretched on nothing’ and precipitated both positive energy (mass and energy) and negative energy (gravity). Dr. Hawking explained in his A Brief History of Time, that the Universe was allocated precisely equal amounts of these two energies. So if one reverses the movie of the Big Bang and watches what appears to be a Big Crunch, all matter looses its mass as it falls down the gravity well and, in the end, everything vanishes. What we see as “something” is really the two faces of zero. Further, Dr. Paul Marmet also explained how one can not add any form of energy to a system (such as potential energy by lifting it up against a gravity well) without its mass/energy (mass) increasing. What do you think of the green-box section here on my user page as well as its three associated footnotes?

Note that I am not necessarily thinking any of this is within the scope of the Kilogram article. But I am interested in your take on whether any of what I have there is in error—that’s my starting point here. Greg L (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a few thoughts!

1. Mass is a conserved quantity in Newtonian mechanics, the only framework in which SI units are practically used. You don't need any special changes to SI to get them to work under relativistic or quantum-mechanical conditions, you merely need to rewrite all the equations that relate the observed physical quantities :P most people don't bother ;)
2. The article on the kilogram is probably not the best place to have a lengthy philosophical discussion in the nature of mass…
3. Stephen Hawking's views are very interesting, but not always "mainstream". It is equally plausible that the Big Bang resulted from a quantum fluctuation in the mass–energy (relativistically conserved quantity)—I wasn't there, I couldn't tell you, and neither was Prof. Hawking! Dr Marmet's views are simply an expression of the conservation of mass–energy in special relativity.
4. I think the object of that short section should be to underline that the kilogram is a unit of mass and not of weight. The Apollo 11 mission took Armstrong et al. to the Moon and back while completely neglecting special relativity (γ–1 = 5.45×10^–4). That it was successful is proof that they didn't neglect the difference between weight and mass!

Physchim62 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. “Practical” Newtonian mechanics. It is impossible to notice simply by weighing the IPK that lifting it upwards one meter against the force of one standard gravity increases its mass by 109.114 femtograms. It is equally impossible to observe that increasing the IPK’s temperature 1 °C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms. There is simply no reason to compensate for an effect that is many orders of magnitude below the threshold of detection using the available instruments.

  But, though impractical, these notions are more than merely “theoretical.” Although one can’t observe gravity’s effect on the IPK, there are other masses where this effect can be observed. Gravity’s effect on mass was directly observed in a 1964 experiment in a 22.5-meter tower that observed a change in the red shift of 14.4 keV gamma rays from Fe⁵⁷. The notion that matter is more massive the higher it is off the ground is quite well established. Dr. Hawking didn’t invent the concept of mass entirely disappearing in a “Big Crunch,” he just pointed out the very broadest of the ramifications of the many physics experiments and astronomical calculations performed since the 1960s and packaged it all up in a tidy, simple way that was nicely explained within the framework of Einstein’s teachings.

  Dr. Marmet’s entire treatise, Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, goes into detail about gravity’s effect on electron orbitals. Although I don’t see it in the linked treatise, I’ve read elsewhere that even compressing a spring increases its mass. Dr. Marmet’s writings make it clear to me that this would be due to the stretched electron orbitals that underlie all materials’ elastic properties. Also, when one looks at the underlying mechanism of kinetic heat energy—all forms of heat energy, really—it becomes clear that adding any form of energy to an object increases its mass. Part of the chemical energy expended by a human, for instance, in lifting a mass on Earth goes into the object, which increases its mass; the rest of the chemical energy is lost as heat. The principle is clear: one doesn’t ever get energy out of, for instance, hydroelectric water, without that water loosing some of its mass.

  Do you know of a Ph.D physicist at the University’s you’ve taught at (and are teaching at) who is more specialized in general and special relativity and Hawking’s take on it? This has all been on my mind for a few years and I’d really like to explore it in greater depth. I’m hoping you can think of someone who would be interested in discussing this with someone eager to learn more about the details. Greg L (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalence is certainly real. Let me give you an example from the field of metrology. The total electron binding energy of a carbon-12 atom is nearly 0.1 ppm of its rest mass, and must be corrected for in atomic mass measurements (which are usually made on ions). The fact that the definition of the mole speaks of "unbound" carbon atoms is also significant, but only for the very most accurate measurement: the correction is nearly 5 parts in 10¹⁰. I seem to have made a mistake in the calculations on mole (unit), so I'll go and change them now. Remember that every time you fly you gain mass but lose weight! Physchim62 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Chembox deprecated templates

Heya PC

I was gonna do it by hand, but Evula has a very fast way of doing it... anyway, all done!

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What would the large wet haddock think?

Harry was not pleased with PC's actions, and decided to take a shower in expectation of a haddock-slapping (Grimsby version of WP:TROUT)

I can understand that you may not agree with my comments on the SI unit talk page, but to be so nasty and intolerant? Was that really necessary? What would your large wet haddock, and it's no personal attacks policy, have to say about this? I made all of my points using Wikipedia policy and backed them up using Wikipedia article links. For the good of Wikipedia I suggest that you read the civility guidelines once more. As an admin I'm sure you're already very familiar with these points. I look forward to some constructive edits with your good self in the future.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I was writing this I see that you posted an apology on the said page. I accept you apology, and as I said: I look forward to some constructive edits with your good self in the future.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  22:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already apologised in the forum which seemed most appropriate, so let me expand on the reasons for my orginal actions. Firstly, I didn't realise that you were quite so inexperienced as a WP editor: while this doesn't excuse a lack of civility, I hope it goes someway to explaining it. I was exasperated because you had done something silly (in my view), and I thought you should have known better. To get to the crux of the issue, disputes about spelling variations are among the most pointless that occur on WP (although if you ever think your opponents are being really silly in an argument, I recommend that you check out Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars – just a part, because the page is 177 kB long!) In converting the spellings from the version preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary to that used by most Brits, including those who write official press releases, did you really improve the article at all? Did your edits help to improve the understanding of SI units to the general population? Even in terms of spelling, the important point in the article, surely, is that it uses the spelling "metre" (and always has done). IMHO, that is what is worth defending against NIST, because it is a truly international issue: –ise vs. –ize is a side-issue and unimportant in relation to the subject matter. Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a scatological but illustrative example of how silly arguments over spelling can get! Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point: the change hasn't improved the article or increased anyone's understanding. I do think that it has made the article look slightly nicer: IMHO I feel that the "-ize" endings are ugly, but that's just IMHO. I prefer UK spellings and this time WP guidelines do too. It should have been a quick change-and-move-on type edit. I thought I'd go by the book and write my reasons and evidence on the discussions page. But then lots of Americans appeared and started complaining. If I have been silly then we are all guilty of being silly. I changed the spellings which you think was silly, but then lots of people complained about me changing the spellings. If I was silly then they are too. The problem is that, as we say in English, I've made a rod for my own back. This has become a matter of principle, and if IP users are going to change it back without explanation then I will have to revert it. I must say that I am pleased by your response. I found your original comments hurtful and I appreciate the fact that you were rational enough (and man enough) to have apologised. Thank you.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Electron configuration

Thanks for all your work on the electron configuration article. :) --Alexc3 ^(talk) 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not finished yet, I still have the lead section to deal with (always the most difficult)… But I'm glad you appreciate it and thanks for taking the time to let me know. Physchim62 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well, then thanks for everything you've done so far. I'm surprised someone only noticed the lack of references after I moved the citation needed tag from the bottom to the top of the article even though it's been there since December. I wasn't sure if it would matter where it was, but I guess it was a good idea after all. Anyway, good luck, but don't spend too much time on it! --Alexc3 ^(talk)

Commas

Cheers pal. What I should have said is that spaces in place of commas are not standard. I am a mathematician and I have visitited every continent on the globe and have never seen spaces instead of commas.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  20:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The problems is that spaces instead of commas are standard in the physical sciences (I'm quite willing to believe you about maths), even if the standard is not universally applied, especially in generalist publications. See ISO 31-0 for our article, or this page from the UK National Physical Laboratory for proof that I'm not just making this up ;) Physchim62 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I've never seen it in 10 years of reseach; but if that's what the evidence suggests then who am I to argue? Thanks for clearing up the problem. I'll leave it to you to revert the edit.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  20:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Assistance in GA process

Physchim62, thanks very much for your nomination of Kilogram for GA status, for your edits in helping to bring it up to full GA requirements, and for your assistance in discussing how to bring it up to snuff with the GA reviewer on the Kilogram talk page. None of that would have happened without your initiative and I’m convinced it couldn’t have gone smoother or faster with anyone else’s assistance. Wikipedia is a much better encyclopedia as a result of your efforts. Greg L (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect PT Discussion

Please, see my 11/02/08 response to your comment about LSPT and the Perfect PT at Aufbau discussion page [[2]]. Your imput will be appreciated.Drova (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC

As you know, we've had our share of overzealous IUPAC fans. Now we have the opposite: someone who finds that definitions from IUPAC have no place in Wikipedia because they are "too technical". If you have time, please see Talk:Fluorocarbon and let us know if you have any suggestions to untangle the discussion. Thanks, Itub (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been trying my best to keep away from that discussion, but I suppose I shall have to weigh in at some point. I have some sympathy with all sides, but we need to get some sort of consensus together so that we can move forward on these articles. I'll see if I can put some constructive ideas together. Physchim62 (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 IFC

Evening. Earlier today you reverted an edit I made, dismissing it as being petty. I was quite offended by that and I demand a thorough explanation for your actions. I think it's rude to revert someone's edit without contacting them when it's not obvious vandalism. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to dismiss your edit as petty, merely the (alleged) comment by Steingrímur J. Sigfússon. Does such language really add to the article? Do Steingrímur's comments allow readers to gain a better understanding of a complex and disputed situation? I think not.

I would do exactly the same for comments by Dutch politicians accusing the Icelandic government of "daylight robbery", and there have been such (although nobody has felt it appropriate to include them in the article). Physchim62 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To illustrate just how petty the comments were, they were made on the 22 October 2008. The formal request for the IMF loan was not made until 3 November, according to the Icelandic government (and its only their problem that they waited so long). No request, no refusal and no "extortion": perhaps Iceland's Foreign Ministry would have an easier job if it weren't for such people "shooting from the lip" when the country actually needs all the help it can get after the failings of a very few people. In any case, myself and others have spent many hours trying to keep this article encyclopedic and not to let it descend into a slanging match. You are welcome to take this further at Talk:2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis if you wish. Physchim62 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that statements made by notable people are important, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Saying something like that in the media is a big deal and generates a lot of fuss. I have been reading the news article and watching the video over and over again and I realise that my interpretation was slightly off. Steingrímur was commenting on rumours but not actual facts. There has been a lot of false news circulating international media and it's hard to tell what's true and what's false. I didn't intent to get into a lenghy debate over who's to blame, but since you added your person opinion, I'll do the same. Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, has stated that Iceland would not be granted a loan from the EU unless the IceSave desputes are resolved. When one says "do what I tell you or you won't get money", that's blackmailing - it's very simple. The Icelandic language does not however differentiate between "extortion" and "blackmailing" so it's hard for me to tell which Steingrímur meant - and perhaps I chose the wrong word. But when it comes down to it, I think We're All to Blame. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot unbanned

Hi Physchim! The one year ArbCom ban of Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) has just expired. According to Jehochman's statement at WP:RFARB/Sadi Carnot, you were willing to mentor him if he returns (which Jehochman deems unlikely), so I thought I sended you a little note. Cheers, Face 12:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

so

what odds you putting me at as EWG these days? -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i couldn't help but address that somehow. FYI no bad faith with my rhetorical question. I would like you hear your thoughts though i hope you don't view me as some radical like the uranium guy. which, by the way the feds said gulf war syndrome exists now. does that vindicate the radical in some small way? looks like he was still making terrible edits from the discussion though. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, talk page messages tend to slip my mind if I don't reply immediately. In some ways, I hope you are EWG, as that would mean that we can expect fewer problems from them in the future! Probably no such luck, though :( Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

lol, thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid dissociation constant

Thanks for the heads-up, I've replied on the FAC page. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've answered the science at Talk:Acid dissociation constant, out of honesty (it's always too easy to criticize blindly) and to see if some new minds can find ways of making these points clearer. Best wishes, and thanks for trying! Physchim62 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ADC

Physchim62, your oppose is still standing at the Acid dissociation constant FAC; is that intentional? Tim withdrew his edits. Mike Christie (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ammonia

Dear Physchim62 - there are some additional comments on the ammonia thing which may interst you . cheers..Engineman (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The FAC acid dissociation constant

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates FAC status and the problems with ther lead of acid dissociation constant is discussed there.--Stone (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Template

Thanks for wanting to help me out. It's kinda hard to explain, but I formulated my problem om Help:Template as follows:

"Hi. I made a new template called template:Infobox EU legislation, which is designed to merge template:EU regulation and template:EU directive. To make this merge come about I need some sort of a redirect from template:EU regulation and template:EU directive to template:Infobox EU legislation, but with the addition of another parameter ("regulation=1" for template:EU regulation and "directive=1" template:EU directive). The addition of the parameter is not a problem, but how do a forward the original parameters of template:EU regulation? I'm currently trying to establish something at template:EU regulation. Maybe some expert can help?"

Maybe that's a bit vague, but I want to establish a redirect basically, but with the addition of another parameter. How do I do that? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SLOWLY, please! I'm just taking a look at your new template, and it looks good (at a first glance). But the way you are trying to redirect the templates simply won't work. There is a way, in fact there are several ways, can you give me half-an-hour to think about it and look at the possible consequences? Physchim62 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll wait :). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you succeeded! This is exactly what I and a lot of other people wanted, thanks a lot! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, there are a couple of problems… Physchim62 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looks good though! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The title on {{Infobox EU legislation}} must not be in large type: some of the titles are very long! It seems that the template transfer is working now, but I'll try and fix the title problem on the base template. Physchim62 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, some things you might need to know: {{Infobox EU legislation}} is based on {{EU directive}}. The "large type"-design was designed not by me, but by User:Ssolbergj, and I actually quite like it :). Some titles may be long, but I think it doesn't make the template TOO long (if that is the case the "title=" parameter may be used wrong).

About "implementation" "commencement", these are actually two completely different things. Commencement states the date of entry into force, usually the date of publication in the Journal of the EU. Implementation states the implementation deadline set by a directive for national governments to comply with a directive (a directive has to be "translated" into member state legislation before it has legal effect). A regulation has direct effect and therefore has no implementation date. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As an illustration for a long title: Directive on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission is quite long :). But I think it looks rather good within the {{EU directive}} template, on my computer it consists of 7 lines... Oh, and again thanks for your effort, you really helped me out! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to make it look good with "Regulation laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods", which is another of my favorites! If you hadn't already noticed, I wrote the templates in the first place, which may explain why I'm spending some time to correct them! Physchim62 (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that, shame on me! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's leave the title size problem for tomorrow (or until someone complains)! Now, the implementation date problem! Physchim62 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed by your good self I see, and you've taught me a little trick for optional fields in tables! A very profitable evening for all, I think! Tomorrow's job is my latest creation, {{ECJ case infobox}}, which really should be expanded to include the CFI and the EFTA Court… ;) Physchim62 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A very profitable evening indeed! I redirected {{EU directive}} also to {{Infobox EU legislation}} (with the "type=Directive" parameter of course), and I started a potential discussion about the lay-out on Template talk:Infobox EU legislation. Let's see what tomorrow brings! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A dollar enthusiast there in the back

Protests today Haukur (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen that sign before (last Saturday maybe?)! It goes to show the level of the economic debate… I've just got some economic statistics up to revise Economy of Iceland a bit. In 2007, Iceland's exports were eurozone (and tied currencies) 65.83%, sterling 14.04%, US dollar 5.58%; while imports were eurozone and tied 46.35%, sterling 5.72%, US dollar 14.40%. Adopting the dollar would be an absolute no-brainer, it would turn Iceland from a sovereign hedge fund into a sovereign FX fund! Still, can't please everyone, I suppose! Physchim62 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of people are quite serious about wanting to adapt the Norwegian krone and the Swiss currency has a few fans as well. I don't think I've seen anyone argue for the pound, however... There was also an MP who suggested we adapt the Faroese króna (which is tied to the Danish krone, which is tied to the euro - sneaky sneaky), I still don't know whether he meant that seriously or not.[3] Haukur (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all this talk of Iceland going into currency union with Norway must be why the Norwegian krone has been hitting historic lows against the euro since mid-October! :P The Swiss franc is up on the other hand, although it's still within its 10% range (just right at the top of it). Hold on, didn't anyone mention that the Swiss National Bank keeps the franc "tied" (loosely) to the euro? It's true they don't exactly shout about it, but the figures speak for themselves.

Nevertheless, this misses the question as to why Norway or Switzerland would want to support a joint currency… A true currency union with a single monetary authority would have to be agreed with the countries concerned. Otherwise the options are a free-floating currency or a currency board/peg. Using euro notes in the way that Andorra or Monetnegro do is simply an extreme example of a currency board; Latvia has just as surely adopted the euro as currency, even if they use strange denomination for their coins and banknotes which they call "lats"! Physchim62 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The idea with the Norwegians is, of course, that they're the only ones who could conceivably be convinced to enter into a currency union with us - they have some interest in keeping us in the EEA. Any other adaptation would be a peg - a peg with lipstick on is still a peg, as you point out. In any case the Norwegians seem pretty cool to the idea and the Icelandic government doesn't seem to be pursuing it.

What annoys me a bit are all the people trying to solve yesterday's problem. We had a deadly cocktail of a floating currency, an oversized financial sector and very high interest rates - attracting speculators. This meant that the currency didn't fluctuate based on what importers and exporters were doing but on what speculators were doing. But the financial sector has been cut to size, interest rates will go down soon (real interest rates are quite low) and speculators are hightailing it out of the country. At least in theory we should now be able to have a float that makes sense. Haukur (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

patrolled it

I patrolled this for you. Jón Sigurðsson (minister) Chergles (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

standard state

Dear fellow Pchem'er

I have some real problems with your edits on this page. I'd appreciate your response on its talk page. Jcwf (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclined to reject mediation...

Hi Physchim62,

My inclination is to reject mediation, but I wanted to discuss it with you before doing it formally after you went through all the effort to request it.

My reasoning is that there are many dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia articles that refer to the speed of light in vacuum--articles on optics, electromagnetism, interaction of light and matter, relativity, particle physics, etc. If it does indeed make sense to change it at Speed of light, then logically it would make sense to change it in those other places as well. (Do you agree?) It seems unhelpful to spend time trying to reach a consensus among the four of us; rather, we should be spending time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics reaching a consensus among the many many people who are actively editing articles that refer symbolically to the speed of light in vacuum. This has the added benefits that (1) If you can make a convincing case that c_0 is the more logical and better symbol to use, then you will have a lot of people to help make the appropriate changes in all of the many articles affected, multiplying your impact many times over, (2) There will be broader input into this widely-applicable issue, (3) The various Wikipedia pages will have a consistent notation, which is nice for frequent Wiki readers.

Let me know your thoughts. Maybe I'm misunderstanding why your put in this request. --Steve (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm asking for mediation because it seems that, on the talk page, we are talking at cross-purposes, and the volume is getting loader… I could have proposed an RFC, but I'm not sure that that would get us anywhere further: we would simply be talking/shouting at cross-purposes on a different page!

I don't think your "logical conclusion" is as strong as you make it out to be, although it obviously has its weight. If we are talking about mass–energy equivalence, of course we should be using E = mc² and not the pedantic formulation of E = mc₀²: there is no ambiguity when the speed of light is used in relativity. I even want(ed) to include this equation in the speed of light article as an example of non-ambiguous use of c.

In other cases there might be ambiguity, and my position (as you well know!) is to use c₀ in such cases. I don't know how many there would be, nor do I intend to go on some sort of a witch-hunt to find them all: I think the normal standards of article writing, and the normal procedures of article improvement, would be sufficient to deal with them.

I don't think we should be afraid of making a (fairly minor) change in the speed of light article simply because it might have implications elsewhere on the project. Many edits have implications for other articles, but the official policy is be bold! WP has proved capable of coping with such problems in the past, and shall surely continue to cope with them in the future. On the other hand, it is clear that if c₀ is not used correctly on the speed of light article, it won't be used correctly anywhere else either. The discussion over terminology is important in that sense. Physchim62 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if we only look at articles where the speed of light in non-vacuum materials is specifically discussed, there are certainly hundreds. Articles about lenses, refractive index, dielectric constants, nonlinear optics, quantum solid-state physics, AC currents propagating through wires, and so on. I don't expect you to find all these articles yourself, and that's exactly the point: By convincing the community that this is a worthwhile goal, your impact will be many many times greater with almost no extra effort. If I were in your shoes, I would be thrilled to have that opportunity.

It's true that sometimes people spend a lot of time on some article talk page discussing a change that is actually applicable to a large number of other articles. I don't see that as a good thing; I think it everyone would benefit from such discussions being pursued in a broader forum. That's exactly why these broader forums were created.

I don't think pursuing mediation is a bad thing per se. I just think it's a very poor use of our time. A much better use of our time would be to bring up this topic in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics.

Moreover, regardless of how you read the previous discussion of this topic there, the discussion certainly concluded with c_0's being changed back to c's. This state of affairs was settled at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, with the input of a number of people who aren't participating here right now. If you want to override this settled state of affairs, I think it would be inappropriate to do so without at least notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. --Steve (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that — but tomorrow! It's past midnight here in Spain, so I shall restrict my WP editing to less intellectual things! Physchim62 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no rush, get some sleep! :-) --Steve (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Speed of light. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

OMX Iceland 15

Dear Physchim62, in case OMX Iceland 15 is not a price-weighted index (reverted edit of article "2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis"), you might also want to correct article OMX Iceland 15 (my source for that statement). Kind Regards JanSuchy (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just looking into it now! The headline index seems to be a bit of a strange beast… Physchim62 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fampridine

Please relax. Surely you don't think using a nonproprietary name is an attempt at publicity? I didn't rename the article to the drug's (proposed) trade name, nor would I ever have done so. I'd appreciate it if you could read my reply over at WT:CHEM. Happy holidays, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I would also appreciate it if you could revert your move. As I explain over at WT:CHEM (and explained at Talk:Aspirin last month), guidance on article naming provided by the Manual of Style trumps WP:COMMON; drug articles should therefore be named after the drug's INN even if it is not the most common name. I will not move the article back myself. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Creación capítulo Wikimedia España

Hola, ¿qué tal? Como sé que estabas participando en la creación de un capítulo local de la fundación Wikimedia, puede que te interese saber que se está volviendo a plantear otra vez el asunto en la misma página de discusión de Meta.

Parece que hay gente nueva convencida de que poner en marcha el capítulo es una idea genial, así que espero que entre varios consigamos crearlo en poco tiempo. Te animo a volver a participar en la discusión, y espero que esta vez nada nos detenga. Un saludo ——surueña 17:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis

Hi Pchyschim,

you reverted my edit to article on Icelandic financial crisis. I reviewed supplied source once again and I still can't see any reference to "powers dating from the Second World War" as stated in the article. Source only mentions 2001 legislation as did my edit to the article (from the Time article: "now a spirited national counteroffensive has been launched against the British government, which invoked a 2001 antiterrorism act to freeze an Icelandic bank's assets in Britain"). Does 2001 antiterrorism act date back to the Second World War? Please explain or supply source that doesn't contradict the sentence used. Thank you.--Pethr (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis. There's nothing particularly contradictory against wartme measures being contained in an Act dating from 2001. To give another example, the power of a police officer in England and Wales to arrest somebody comes from section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: that doesn't mean that the English police were unable to arrest people before 1984 (!), merely that that is the most recent version of the law. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)