Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi.
I'm contacting you because you were involved in the discussion concerning the renaming of the lists of basic topics.
I ran into resistance when I attempted to rename the set.
Therefore, the name change hasn't been completed, because the previous discussion wasn't widespread enough, nor announced in enough places.
I've submitted a new proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to rename the pages called List of basic x topics to Topic outline of x.
The Transhumanist 06:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I came across a redirect you created: CaCr2O7, which points at calcium dichromate (which doesn't have an article yet). I was wondering if you were planning an article on that soon? I noticed your sandbox, where you have CaCr2O7 with calcium chromate (CaCrO4) as a synonym (surely it is a different compound?). As things stand at the moment, the redirect you created will get deleted unless the destination article is created. I think things should be handled differently, but just letting you know in case it does get deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, I'm mostly writing because I've got a question indirectly related to my chem article. I'm working on trying to bring ADC up to Class A under the Chemistry Wikiproject because I started work on the article 3 years ago. Since then, a user you may remember named Petergans has also made some significant contributions to the article. I made a suggestion and he mentioned that the subject of our disagreement had been "extensively discussed" on the law of mass action article, and indeed it has. It also gave me a good feel for his editorial style, and I worry about him becoming possessive of the article again. I guess I'm looking for suggestions? I just want to avoid arguing about the relationship between thermodynamics and kinetics again. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Spelling and english are not OK, but for a start it is OK! The book at googlebooks is quite funny and good to read. The article at Fresenius Analytical journal also gave a few aspects which where not covered by the Geramn article. So another chemist I can add to the trophy list ov having created the article! If you have others you like to have? Thanks --Stone (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That looks much better now. Apart from the fact that the important thioridazine compound is not mentioned, which is synthesized from the fireant toxin and the insecticidal phenothiazine, which is also a rubber vulcanization chemical. Ergo, thioridazine causes side effects like fireant bites, acts insecticidal in the brain i.e. "anticholinesterase blocking" and also slightly vulcanizes softened brain tissues. Can we add that? ;-) It was there, but has been deleted. Not to talk about the important pharmaceuticals Ditran and Piperidilbenzilates. I added these, it was so educational *sigh* 70.137.181.232 (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Was just a wind up. The original editors of such info have vulcanized brains. You should have seen the article before.
Conformations: Thanks for the edits. One could forget that the piperidine also has a boat conformation, what about that? If we don't include it, the info now there is incomplete in the essentials. If we include the full info to the same depth as in the chair conformation, the article becomes quite heavy on conformational chemistry. Maybe include both, but with a little less detail? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Far as I know the boat configuration is at a higher energy than the chair configuration, but it is also a local minimum of energy, surrounded by an energy wall. As a local minimum it is stable, only less favored statistically. It would be instable, if it would be at a local maximum or slope, as the surrounding conformations are. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I note that you recently edited Cyclohexane. What uncanny coincidence. Without seeing your contributions, I had chosen that same article for use in an example on Talk:MOSNUM only twelve hours later. What do you think of my latest proposal regarding ml / mL HERE on Talk:MOSNUM? What I’m trying to do is give chemistry editors the latitude to use the SI-compliant lowercase L in prefixed forms (like ml), and also address the highly ambiguous non-prefixed form, like “2 l bottle” by requiring that it be uppercase L (“2 L bottle”). Greg L (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Itub
DMFA goes somewhere weird. I assume you refer to dimethylformamide? I know that by "DMF", perhaps DMFA is an alternate abbreviation. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Given your interest I would like your opinion on deleting the section On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances#Collector value.
My contribution reproduced from Talk:On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances page to avoid 'fragmentation':
I have deleted the reference in this section as it was broken, although I must say that I was tempted to delete the whole subsection. However, the 'art-works' argument convinced me otherwise. I wonder how much someone would pay for the PDF copy I have?... ;-) --Spud Gun (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I am not now so convinced by the 'art-works argument'. I have looked at several Wikipedia pages concerning works of art by Picasso (as good a choice as any...) and many make no mention as to their value. Given the nature of this 'work of art', unless there is a verifiable sale at auction for a substantial sum (rather than some somewhat arbitrary cost value), I suggest that this section be deleted, as its sale value is far from germane to the true vale of the work. --Spud Gun (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
See piperidine talk, pharmacological significance. I have added from memory a few considerations in embedding a functional amino group into a semi-rigid conformation, like piperidine or morpholine. This is std pharmacology text material, also found in numerous teaching books. As an example (however with a morpholine ring, not a piperidine ring) look how the structure of methamphetamine was embedded into the ring structure in phenmetrazine. The other examples are also valid. This IS significant as a drug design method, however not in the naive sense Carebear and others think. Not everything you don't know is bullshit or vandalism. 70.137.164.136 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Something's wrong with that bot edit. It looks good but it doesn't work. I have reported it here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I don't mind you moving a page to change the punctuation in the title, but could you update the articles that link to this? list. Thank you! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ivan. I knew this is not exactly your field of wikiediting, but I would like to ask your help with the FAC nomination of the Oil shale extraction article. I knew you have gone through the FAC procedure previously and probably you could help with edits/comments in this process. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Since you have administrative authority, you might be able to get this awful thing removed. It looks like the author is generating garbage. Probably a really smart 8-year old. PS thanks for all your good efforts and help. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: Smokefoot's request. Should this be rectified? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll be a great admin, since you've been around here for a while and have good judgment. However, RFA is not a walk in a park, so I understand your reluctance. If you wish, you can treat this as a standing invitation from me - just say the word and I'll start the ball rolling? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A couple months back you fixed some links on my page to make clickable category links for my own future reference instead of putting my userpage in those categories. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate it. Keep up the good work. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Itub,
Good to finally meet you in Philly! Thanks a lot for making time for that.
Sorry that you ended up nominating some articles right before the automated selection came out! An unfortunate happenstance, as we transition from a manual to an automated system. The manual system will remain open, though because a few articles may get mis-read by the bot or missed altogether. Also, in some cases we may want a complete set (e.g., we have all the known elements, even though a handful are theoretically ranked too low). Thanks for the nomination, anyway! Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you have a look on the Image:Periodic_Table_by_Quality.SVG ? I like it that you simply can change the svg with a text editor and you get the new colours you want. Is this an improvment? Is the small Image Periodic_Table_by_Quality.png in every project elements box replaceable? --Stone (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to talk to this character about creating redirects (useful) or tidying up IUPAC name slot in ChemBox... I just cannot understand what is driving him, and the repeated efforts are annoying. Maybe plasmaphysics will listen to you.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You are definitly fast, I wanted to add the stuff, after I got home, but ... You might get it GA or even featured! --Stone (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I stepped on your toes. It wasn't my intention. My main concern with an "ion" title is that there is also a H2- ion that could fall within this name. You are probably right about the terminology. I thought it might sound more clear this way. Please don't take this in any negative way, and let me know if you need any help with this. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to say I agree with both your name change and the removal of categories on this article - I had pondered both, but you were bold and did them. Thanks, and regards, TrulyBlue (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I have followed your suggestion -- I converted this one-sentence article into a redirect to "striatum", which already discusses the corticostriate connection. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: the tag issue, you might want to see my expanded explanation at User talk:Rifleman 82#Isis/DRAW, but I do agree with you that the importance tag is a better fit for this case (despite the silliness of the name; they're obviously both notability tags). Propaniac (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
An old reply here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Has this bot been approved for use? It showed up in a report at WP:UAA. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I would normally do it if it was something I was knowledgeable in, but chemistry isn't my strong suit. I did Noble gas to test myself and see how much I knew; I did fairly well, I guess. But I haven't done a chemistry article since! So, sorry, I think I'll pass on this one. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have readded the country column and matched synched everything with the Nobel website. Should I add some kind of note saying that the column just follows what the website says and may not necessarily indicate the birthplace/nationality? Do you consider your concerns addressed now? Thanks, Scorpion0422 23:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you think I could add the birth countries mentioned at the Nobel website, but italicize them, ie. Marie Curie | Poland/France . That way, it would still conform the website, but would also avoid some of the inevitable edit wars that could crop up. -- Scorpion0422 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I added stuff from iridium to the osmium article. Would be nice if you could have a look. Thanks!-Stone (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Itub. How much work was it to extract these data from the chemboxes? I think it would be nice to have the same for de:Vorlage:Infobox Chemikalie. --Leyo 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging QL (chemical), if you know of any web resources (or non-web resources) that might be of use for expansion it would be appreciated. Thanks. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, your name was on the list of volunteers as someone interested in physics and outer space. You might be interested in the article Gerard K. O'Neill, currently up for review. Gerard K. O'Neill invented the particle storage ring, and he managed to get a paper about space colonization published in a peer reviewed journal. If you have time, could you give it a read and let me know if you see any areas that need improvement? Thank you. Wronkiew (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I have posted a response on the review page. Wronkiew (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ivan. I'm back and beginning the revisions. In Acid dissociation constant, Mike Christie has substituted theta for the thermodynamic standard sign, which I'm sure is wrong. I can't find the IUPAC recommendation on-line. Is it still the plimsoll mark, like ΔGO or is like ΔGo? Please comment on the FAC discussion page. Petergans (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed your name in the PR list.
Can you take a look at this PR talk page Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1 please?
The article makes lots of claims that need to be assessed.
Thank you very much.
Cesar Tort 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks dear for giving this very use full link to edit.... in future I hope u support me.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Soft (talk • contribs) 11:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As an Aerospace Engineer, I recognize that a perfect gas and ideal gas are fundamentally different. I have described these differences in Gas. The article for Perfect gas I believe is needed. A Perfect gas is NOT an Ideal gas. Many authors omit the existence of a perfect gas in its entirety because it is not of importance to most people because the majority of people aren't dealing with jet engine or rocket computational models where these small differences make years of difference between computational time. Please reconsider reverting your deletion of Perfect gas. Thanks Katanada (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Itub, I want to apologize for my comment at the fluorocarbon talk page that I think crossed the line and inflamed tensions. I apologize for my hardheaded debate style regarding the definition of fluorocarbon. Ideally, I want to establish a positive co-editing working relationship with you. I am not sure if that is possible. I am about to make some edits to the fluorocarbon talk page. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Itub, I know the organofluorine page might leave a bad taste in your mouth currently, but if you can hear me out, please do. I think it would be most wise to merge organofluorine chemistry with organofluorine, in order to settle on the most general term. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Itub, thank you very much for your opinion at the deletion discussion about the table of LaTeX symbols. I have proposed including the new layout at m:Help talk:Displaying a formula#LaTeX symbols. Regards, --Julian (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Itub, you were recommended for advice, can you please have a look at Talk:Hydrogen#Split_proposal and join the disccussion ? Thanks Mion (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to rescue Thermic reaction by moving it back to Thermic, and making it a disambiguation, with references in basic form. Please improve it as you see fit. --Zigger «º» 16:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful example isn't it? I think the keto-enol stuff (or lack thereof) could be made explicit in contrasting acetone. I reworked the reactivity section, can you take a look? I made the values non-specific and renamed (the value given in Lemal) as just the equilibrium as it seems the true equilibrium constant would take into account the initial concentration of water (but I could be wrong as I am unmotivated to break out a book). Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Droogie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Badger Drink (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
perhaps i shouldn't have said it (according to some policy) but i did here. i cannot help but to have an extreme distaste for that editor. can you please help me out as i have had to deal with the painful thought of his/her potential return to wikipedia? -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
hey, sorry about my mis-edit. do you think that that note should be included in the article itself as it's quite a significant point? or maybe the wording should be changed to something like "what was then known as erbia" as the sentence doesn't make clear that it that it's using past terminology. what i mean is, the sentence effectively says something like "Carl Gustav Mosander found erbia in 1843", i think it should be made clear that this is a past meaning of erbia, as the sentence structure suggests the present meaning. anyway, let me know what you think, sorry if this message is a little confusing... lack of sleep :) xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
My photograph is not fake! The photograph is real! It is not just a white powder! Look closely! Can't you see that it is obviously a metal of some sort! It is a tiny amount of protactinium, shown [much] larger than actual size. Vuerqex (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, and because I don't want you just going and saying it's fake, I want you to know that my actinium picture [[Image:89 Actinium.jpg]] is also real! Vuerqex (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had posted your views in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you de-PRODded this article, you may be interested in participating in the WP:AfD discussion here. Icalanise (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I shouldn't have said a thing.... Have a nice holiday. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If you could weigh in on Petergans recent behavior with the article that would be great.--Jorfer (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Ivan. I see that you are on the ball as usual with the added categories. I have submitted stability constants of complexes (Dec. 28) and polyamino carboxylic acid (Dec 29) as new articles at Template:Did you know but so far they have not received any comment. If you have the time, your help in getting them promoted would be much appreciated. Petergans (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
just wanted to say hello and that your absence has been noticed. hope all is well. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Itub, I wanted to get the Osmium article to GA and so I would ask you if you can have a short look and give a advice what could be improved. The lead is not done yet but the rest is OK I think. Thanks --Stone (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Found two good refs and added them to the article! --Stone (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments at WT:CHEMS. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
To Itub, for polite dialogue. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for the reference idea. I have done the same for the other publishers. BTW are you still in Basel? I have known Helmut and Astrid Sigel for many years and the idea for this article came up at a meeting with them in Pisa, this June. Petergans (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A very cordial thanks for your very extensive contributions in chemistry. Would it be proper to ask whether you'd consider taking a look at Galvanic_cell and especially the article upon which it depends, Salt_bridge? As is obvious from the talk page for Galvanic_cell, the lack of clarity in both articles causes much confusion for new (and not-so-new) students. I've been hoping an expert might undertake a review of those pages for quite some time. Thanks, Ohiostandard (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Your thoughts would be appreciated here. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Triple_Crown/Nominations#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements. Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the platinum crown motivate you to contribute more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.