User talk:User A1/Archive 4

Sorry I didn't get a chance to upload more pictures of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2.1_MP_CCD_Close_Up.JPG

And no I don't have the CCD anymore (I took it apart to see the inside and accidentally broke it)

But I have more pictures of it.

Will upload soon, Qwertylex

(In reply to)

"Hello Qwertylex, I was looking at one of the pictures you made and uploaded, Image:2.1_MP_CCD_Close_Up.JPG. I saw it and thought that it looked a bit bright, so after a little bit of fiddling with the image I found that it seemed to have a lot of dynamic range in the picture itself - fiddling with the levels on sub-regions of the image was insufficient to make it look like the entire image had the right exposure. It seems to me that the core CCD element has the right exposure, but the bits around it do not, saturating the picture. I was wondering that if you still have the CCD lying around is it possible for you to take say, 3 images and then I can attempt to composite them into a single image? I am not an expert image editor, but I will give it a try. Kind regards User A1 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)"

Qwertylex (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

SVG

Yo. I replied to your comment at Wikipedia:SVG_Help#Image:COA_of_Denmark.svg. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image listing

Hi, could you please go back and give a reason for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_November_17#Image:Dyosa_mars.jpg? Just an oversight, I'm sure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was using a Twinkle script. I thought it did it automatically. User A1 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNIFAC Consortium

First, thanks for improving this article. However, i have to say that i'm not so amused that you completely removed the companies list. Why this? I thought that this information was useful. --WilfriedC (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for bringing this up. A link to an external page that lists the members of the consortium would be more useful and appropriate. The paragraph itself was precisely what you say, a list in prose form. Typically lists make for uninteresting reading, particularly if they are 40 items long! I would prefer if you really want that list, that it was a separate article List of UNIFAC consortium members or somesuch, so the reader does not have to remember/scan/skip a particlarly long list in the middle of an otherwise very interesting article. If the reader really wants to know they can visit either an external link or a list page. In short, my motivation for removal was that it disrupts the reading of the article. User A1 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point and can agree. I'll think about a new way to introduce this list in a different manner - maybe simply as a separate paragraph or some kind of appendix or, as proposed, as a new page. --WilfriedC (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Chemical tank editors

Thanks for staying on top of them. 216.74.240.97 and Vinmax are either the same person, or Vinmax is trying incredibly hard to make us think so. 216.74.240.97 is registered to amprotec.net. 173.5.121.47 is likely the same editor using a web-enabled cell phone, though it may be a dynamic ip address. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Satellite aerials

Hi there, I added a reply to your question on my talk page and also added a bit more description to the media file. At some point I'll try and get some pics to illustrate what I mean. Gordonjcp (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello there -

Unfortunately, this is an IP shared by the entirety of Aston University's wireless network - which means that those of us who merely browse Wikipedia (or add to it with our own personal accounts) get strange pop-up messages about vandalism and getting blocked from time to time. It's a shame that some idiot finds little better to do with his golden years at university than vandalise on Wikipedia.

All the best,

One of many users of --134.151.34.244 (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I put in my two cents. User A1 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Free Content undo

I made an undo on the page called "Free Content" (some vandalism there) and it got attributed to you, I don't know why... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.80.118 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's possible we both tried to do it at the same time. User A1 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Chemical engineering intro

I've posted a note on the discussion like you asked. I'm trying to change this because I'm a chemical engineer and I've never worked in the chemical industry, so I don't feel there should be this generalisation.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.64.19 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cartiman

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So if it is provided automatically, I don't need to do anything? User A1 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the template for you this time, and I'm asking you to include it yourself if you create additional sockpuppet categories in the future. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. Clear now :) Thanks User A1 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PID Control Edits

Hello A1. I hope I did not put this edit in the wrong place - you're welcome to move it to a different part of the talk page. I don't understand why you removed reference to the link I provided. "PID Control Beyond the Recipe" is a valuable white paper tutorial resource that goes deeper than traditional PID design, and has a design spreadsheet to go with it. It has also been published in Control Engineering. Zoomzoom1 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, User A1. You have new messages at Odie5533's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odie5533 (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Filament flips

Thanks for rotating the filament images 180 degrees. --KP Botany (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Any time. Actually I did it a lot earlier, but only got around to uploading them later ;) User A1 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Engineering vandalism

Hi there, just to inform you of a user who is constantly changing the engineering and chemical engineering pages to include textile engineering. They seem to be pretty gung-ho about it and is making changes where they should not be. I'm just referring you to this as I do not know what to do about it. The user's IP is "114.130.11.91". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anterior1 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

SVnaGBot1

Hi, this bot is editing without approval (and it is stated that you run it). Please desist from editing with the bot account, whether in an automated fashion or not, until approval is acquired for any tasks allocated. Thanks, and have a nice day. :) — neuro^(talk) 12:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, dont get it -- the bot has approval, and I used it to set up its basic user space (which is required in order to instantiate user pages.) User A1 (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore me, my mistake. As an aside, you should set up the userspace on your main account, the bot should only perform tasks under its account. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 15:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

your vote on POTY

Hi User A1. I wonder, if you voted on PTOY on Commons. If you did, you need to log in to Commons and to vote again because your vote was removed. If you did not vote, please disregard this message. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi User A1 I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SVnaGBot1 has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Invalid tagging

File:Pidgin screenshot.png is a screenshot of Pidgin (software), which is Free Software under the GPL license. It aleady had a {{Free screenshot}} template which indicated this. It appears the uploader mistakenly also added a {{Non-free use rationale}} template, which I've since removed. Tothwolf (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Notation style

Please. Don't write

$a*exp({\frac {b}{c}}).$

(as in Barnes interpolation). Instead, write

$a\exp \left({\frac {b}{c}}\right).$

Note:

• In the second case, the parentheses have the right sizes because of the use of \left and \right.
• In the second case, the "exp" is not italicized and has proper spacing between it and the preceeding a, because of the backslash in the TeX code: \exp. Similarly for \sin, \log, \det, \max, etc.
• Use of an asterisk for multiplication was introduced for use in programming languages using limited character sets. Its use in TeX is uncouth.
• This is all codified in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics).

Michael Hardy (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to put an asterisk in the equation. However I didn't know exp sin and log were prefixed by a slash. Thanks for the cleanup. User A1 (talk)

GA reassessment

No sweat. As you may have noticed, I've been using the time to gets a few more ducks in a row. No matter how I sound on that discussion, dismissive or worse, I really do appreciate you having read the article as carefully as you have and posting your feedback. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been many changes to the article and a response from you would be helpful. I have been treating this partially as an individual reassessment, allowing the main editor to refactor discussion and so on. If the article does not still meet the criteria, then a true community GAR is needed, and multiple editors will need to comment on the article. I will then refactor the discussion according to GAR needs, not the needs of the main editor or the nominator. Geometry guy 23:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

All concrete actions appear to have been addressed. I will close the discussion if no further concerns are raised. I'm not convinced the article meets the criteria, but a new reassessment discussion is needed if it doesn't. Geometry guy 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

link spam by Iwaterpolo

I took a more gentle approach on the edits adding java applets to pages, but just FYI, there were three edits by Special:Contributions/128.97.126.109. PDBailey (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed those. Thanks for letting me know. User A1 (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Folks - just to make sure I understand you point: Are you suggesting that external Java links are never appropriate as external links in Wikipedia articles? Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One normally, no java is not appropriate per WP:EL (rich media). Two, spamming websites to dozens of articles is inappropriate, violates WP:SPAM, may represent a violation of WP:COI and will result in a block. Consider editing to improve the quality of the actual article text. User A1 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Passing the text

I think u can help me. Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Passing_the_parameter --Naveenpf 12:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Hi, I am new to image editing.I want only one svg file must be able to use like [[File:National_shield|No=2| 100 px]] to get File:National highway 2.svg so that we use it for all the articles in this

Can u check these also User_talk:MER-C#National_Highway_Template ?

--Naveenpf 06:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the wikimedia software supports *exactly* what you want to to do. You can superimpose text on an image,but I don't think you have control on the font style that will be used, and the result will vary from browser to browser... Uploading 100 images seems like a better solution, you could then use a template to point to the image that you actually were interested in.

To do such a thing, if you have a computer that supports bash, you could write a file like so, then execute it:

#!/bin/bash

SVGFILE=nationalHighwayBase.svg


if [ ! -f $SVGFILE ] ; then
   echo "Error running script:"
   echo "file: " $SVGFILE " must be in this directory"
   echo Current directory is `pwd`
   exit 1
fi

x=0;

while [ $x -lt 100 ] ;
do
    x=`expr $x + 1`

    cat $SVGFILE | sed "s/toreplacetext/$x/" > IndianNationalHighway-$x.svg

done

This would generate the 100 odd images you need with the number substituted automatically using a file "nationalHighwayBase.svg" in the same folder. All you would need is a text field in the SVG that contained the string "toreplacetext". However you would still be required to upload the image by hand. Most tedious. I am afraid you have exhausted my knowledge about this topic at this point. Sorry I can't help more! User A1 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks a lot !! for ur support ...--Naveenpf 10:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

java applications

Hi, over at User_talk:Pdbailey#Linking_Java_applets_as_external_links_to_Probability_Distributions the user who was adding links to a java application page with many distributions on it is claiming that there is support for adding these. There is some discussion at Category_talk:Discrete_distributions, it would be helpful if you made your current views known. PDBailey (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bayes Theorem

Could you explain why you've removed some sourced material from the Bayes Theorem article? It wasn't clear from the edit summary. Thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons. Firstly, an anonymous user changed the formula, I went hunting around my books and on the internet to see if i could track down if the "Objective bayesian" formula and I could not - so I was not able to determine which formula was correct. Secondly, the concept of an "Objective bayesian" method/notation had not been defined with any marked difference to the regular bayes' theorem. I cannot seem to find a good definition of the difference between the two, and rather than let a possibly incorrect formula in the introduction stand, I thought it was best to remove it. If you are familiar with this concept, then please by all means re-instate it, checking the formula, though i would do so at a later postion in the article. User A1 (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kinetic theory of solids

You wrote: "If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page." I would like to begin work there -- but I will need all of the original equations (or math markups) to be returned to me there. Please advise -- logger9 (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it has already been deleted. You may want to talk to an administrator. User A1 (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Steel

Steel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_Zero 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

gasification

what is wrong with this article?

It is essential to know what the cost of a technology is, and this article provides it? the whole thing is meaningless or at least of little value without a link. i have not connection with the vendor, but believe the article gives information which is essential and not contained in the wiki article. Engineman (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Banknotes

i donl;t see how my recent edits can be construed as vandalism or unhelpful. I looked up the quote on NOTEs or bills to find out the context and wikipedia had nothing.

At least someone could provide some more info based on my prompt.

Your comments strike me as arrogant.

kind regards

Engineman (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Examining your contributions, you are adding links to a non-verifiable source WP:VERIFIABLE all over wiki, and placing this into a signficant number of external link sections. You may wish to reexamine WP:EL User A1 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

on Air conditioner source removal

The guy who added the info referenced his source where it's verifiable. There's no basis in WP:V for you to then remove the source. If you think the source is inadequate, in the sense of failing WP:RS, you can challenge it on that basis, but then you'd need to also call for a better source. Please say on the talk page what you think the problem is. Or even better, fix it, by finding and citing a better source. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

yourHandymanzone is not a verifiable source by any means -- see "Editorial oversight" in WP:V. I stated on his page what the problem was. I will copy the relevant sections to the talk page User A1 (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you conclude that the site has no editorial oversight? Is there flaky information on it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Replying at the article talk page. User A1 (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Webpage steam traps

I would like to add a link to the Steam Traps entry from the site http://www.delta-industries.com/system.html as the site mentioned at the bottom of the current link only discusses mechanical, thermostatic and thermodynamic type steam traps. Venturi orifice steam traps work on a very different principle and therefore the link adds value to another type of steam trap. Also the Wikipedia entry on steam traps discusses venturi orifice type traps so a reference link is surely applicable? We are not trying to advertise anything, just create awareness and help understanding of the various types of steam traps. DeltaIndustries (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for taking the time to bring this up on my talk page. The best way to do this would be to edit the page to include the information directly into the article, rather than to link off-site. One of the reasons wiki works so well is that information can be freely shared distributed and otherwise modified by the reader. A good way of including that content would be to use these articles that you have listed as references, using the methods outlined at WP:CITE. A peer reviewed source, such as might be found in a library would of course be the best possible source, if such things are readily available. Thanks User A1 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So if the content is already on the page and it is sufficient do you have any objections to us adding a link to relevant websites that would give further information? Often when I have used Wikipedia I have found these links useful in getting other important information.DeltaIndustries (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL and WP:COI have extensive discourses on the appropriate actions to take in these cases. I would suggest that currently the article of steam traps contains very little information on the subject. Commercial websites do not satisfy Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided items 5, 14, and possibly 17 as well as WP:COI, all of which may well apply here. It would be better to link to university tutorials, direct highly technical papers (with no advertising, such as journal papers). User A1 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate picture

Hi, I noticed that you converted the file File:Structure cristalline lingot.svg to English (File:Structure cystalline ingot en.svg). I did this same thing back in January (File:Casting microstructure.svg) and it is currently used in the casting (metalworking) article. I noticed that when my version of the image was moved to the current name, the link at File:Structure cristalline lingot.svg wasn't updated (but I fixed it today). I propose that one of these ought to be deleted as they are essentially duplicates. Wizard191 (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that -- however I disagree with the translation in File:Casting microstructure.svg -- The bit labelled columnar is not columnar at all, rather it is dendritic and the chill zone is also mislabelled, as the chill zone is the advancing solidification front, not the solidified microstructure. Quoting from my rather old "Foundry Engineering" book --p117 -- 'The liquid metal near the mold wall surface is often cooled below its freezing point (undercooled), and many fine equiaxed dendrites form in this narrow surface zone, termed the 'chill zone'.' However I do believe "shrinkage" is a better term than "riser" in File:Structure cystalline ingot en.svg. However I also note I should not upload when tired, as I missed an "r" in the filename. User A1 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I based the nomenclature of my picture on the description of a picture from Degarmo (Materials and Processes in Manufacturing p. 282) which states: "Internal structure of a cast metal bar showing the chill zone at the periphery, columnar grains growing towards the center, and a central shrinkage cavity." I'm confused as to how your source differs from mine; it states that the "liquid metal near the mold wall" is "termed the 'chill zone'". Wizard191 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That statment from Degarmo is correct, and in accordance with my reference. However in the diagram, the bit at the wall depicted has already solidified into a columnar microstructure -- I think this is where the confusion may be. User A1 (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So what do you want to do with the duplicate images? Wizard191 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've switched the images over on the casting (metalworking) page. I would suggest tagging it as ifd, but I feel it would be polite if I did not do this. User A1 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, somewhere along the conversation here we have lost each other. After re-reading our whole conversation I think that you are talking about the microstructure as it is solidifying and I'm talking about it after its fully solidified. The text from Degarmo states that "the chill zone is a narrow band of randomly oriented crystals that forms on the surface of the casting. Rapid nucleation occurs here due to the presence of the mold wall's and the relatively rapid surface cooling." As such, I think that my image is completely correct for an image of a solidified cast microstructure. Wizard191 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a form of institutional journal access? If so I will dig up some papers to cross-check this. User A1 (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't. I do have another materials book available to cross reference, but I won't be able to check anything until this evening. Wizard191 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found the following books on google: [1], [2], and [3]. Note that the third ref is not completely applicable as it is in reference to very large ingot castings, but it is very interesting reading. I think I'm going to make a new picture, because the current one is misleading; it makes the chill zone grains look larger than the central equiaxed grains, which it is not, based on these new books I've found. Wizard191 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my other book (Smith, Foundations of Material Science and Engineering, pp. 132-133) doesn't comment on the casting zones of ingots explicitly. It does states that there are two types of grains: equiaxed and columnar. However, it does show two pictures of cross-sections of cast ingots. One has the chill zone at the wall, the column zone growing to the center and the equiaxed zone in the center. The other is a picture of aluminum alloy 1100 cast using the Properzi method with equiaxed grains at the periphery and columnar grains throughout the rest of the casting and no central equiaxed grains. So there is something else to keep in mind. Wizard191 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Porter_and_easterling has a good discussion on this -- I was going to re-read it, but I have left my copy elsewhere and need to retrieve it tomorrow. Sory for being so tardy! User A1 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a good source you have there. I've redone the image so that it better mimics the images in these sources and gives a better idea of scale (File:Cast ingot macrostructure.svg). Let me know what you think. Wizard191 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the changes are great! User A1 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Book citation

Hello, User A1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Book_citation_--_no_ISBN.2FDOI.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Steam Trap

So how do I go about putting the link to venturi orifice steam traps on the steam traps page?

Relax A1, I'm not a vandal

I'm adding much need references to chemical articles. I have a look at my references again to see if they "make sense". Labelling a piece of equipment "makes sense" as the reference give instruction of how to properly assemble the apparatus and how to use it properly, regards Quantockgoblin (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to reference assertions. In a bit of a hurry. will expand later. User A1 (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User_talk:Rifleman_82 to have a look at this. He is well respect editor of chemical articles. I trust his judgement. Either way I think I'm done with adding reference to wiki articles, it turns out that it is a big waste of my time. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have a bit more time now, so I can expand on my comments. Firstly, let me assure you I do not believe you are a vandal in any way! However, I do believe that the statements that are being referenced are being done so in what I would call an unusual manner. Firstly it appears that you have a reference material that is being pushed into several articles, where, if I was writing something I would normally state something, then look for backup, or if I was editing, I would reference a statement that I feel is controversial. I see no need to reference direct assertions, such as A Soxhlet extractor is a piece of laboratory apparatus (in this case reference 2 states whom it was invented by, no need to push this here), or citing an image of a manometer - the image is not from someone, so it does not need to be attributed, nor is there any way that the book could ascertain that this is indeed a picture of a manometer. This particular example I believe is a form of synthesis -- where you have seen an image and description of manometers both on wikipedia and in this reference book -- then proceeding to tag the manometer as "referenced". As an extreme example, the manometer could be a replica, a fake or something that just looks like a manometer -- the referenced work provides no certainty against such extremes. Closer to reality, one could conceive of a situation where such a synthesis is incorrect -- a user incorrectly references a device or apparatus, which may simply appear to be such.

So in summary

• The location of the references is odd -- usually references are used to provide a verifiability mechanism for assertions
• References are being pushed, rather than pulled -- increasing the potential for misapplication or excessive citation of non-assertive content
• Synthesis may be inadvertently performed when adding these references.

that said, I note that some of my undos have themselves been undone. I am happy to wait for Rifleman's comments, but I am not particularly content with the current situation with respect to the articles. Thanks for bringing this up anyway. User A1 (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

OK, I suggest we leave it where it is for now, till we get a second opinion. However, I strongly object to the term "pushed", it implies that I have some sort of agenda to promote. For the sake of clarity, I would like to state that I have no vested interest in promoting the cited reference. The reference source is a practical bible of organic chemistry techniques, and thus a perfect reference source as cited.

To be honest, I have some difficulties in understanding your points and I think you rather expose your weakness (dare I say ignorance) of the subject matter.

What is unusual here (if anything) is that I have gone out of my way to provide references to bald assertions that should have been referenced in the first place. Many editors of chemistry articles have a wealth of common general knowledge in the lab and tend to make bald statements of fact that whilst true, are often unsupported in anyway. What is "unusual" here is that I decided to take on this unglamorous task!

I think if you got the reference book out of the library and had a look yourself at the pages cited, rather than making assumptions about what a reference source could or couldn’t say, you might see why the references have been given in the way they have been. What is true in one technical field cannot necessarily be applied to another field.

Personally, I think you've rather jumped in with both boots without really understanding the subject matter. I think you noticed what you thought was an unusual editing pattern and decided to act. I think you might have been better advised waiting to see if the established editors of these articles objected (to date none have - perhaps they are waiting on user:Rifleman_82?).

I think unless you really understand the subject matter, you are best advised not to determine what is “normal” in that field, rather than relying on baseless assumptions. Assume good faith!

I am sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but I think it is true - Quantockgoblin (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)