User talk:Ddroar

Welcome to wiki. He/she/it has created a number of stubby articles including Scud, Turboprop, Malaria, Quinine, Quasi-autonomous non-government organisation (not so stubby) and Brick. As well as some other Q's which have been jumped all over by Paul 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary' Drye.

I recommend that you write your stubs in Wikipedia style, not dictionary style. e.g. see my super-minor edit of quintuplet to make it more Wikipediesque. It makes adding to the article easier for others, and is less jarring. --TheCunctator

Thanks. Much appreciated input, as was making the big mistake of feeling my way, and not reading all the how to type documents. I promise that I have become much more detailed in my posts, and the dictionary definitions are dead and buried. Ddroar

Welcome Dave! I hope your first experiences here aren't too discouraging. There's no problem with contributing stub articles (our name for very small new pages); check out Larry Sanger/The Perfect Stub Article for some suggestions (pretty good ones, IMHO) on creating stubs. --Stephen Gilbert

Hello, Dave. Nothing personal about the entries I removed, I hope you realize. Some of them I did leave in as stubs that may grow one day, but the others didn't strike me as having much hope of being expanded in the manner of an encyclopedia article. Quail stayed, Quiver didn't. Bear in mind that's there's nothing stopping you from changing them back, or adding more to them to show one and all that I'm out to lunch.

Welcome to Wikipedia -- Paul Drye

Olive branch accepted gratefully, as is advice and help. I stand by my 'offend the experts theory', though, as hopefully the flurry of activity on quiver has demonstrated. I am of the (perhaps naive) opinion that some info is better than none, and it appears that stubby info offends so many people, that they feel obliged to fill it in! Either way I can see this as a win-win for Wikipedia and people on both sides of the stubs debate.

This is a fascinating and stimulating community and project, you have a new member hooked! Ddroar

I wouldn't trust me on this. I suggest asking drBob, who usually goes around correcting my mistakes. Also, you appear to be vastly more qualified than me. However I would have thought that geometric isomerism would be independent of the isotopic mass - the properties would be very similar (identical?).

Heh, Sodium does me way to much credit. I've not actually used much chemistry since my A-levels, but as I understand it, it doesn't matter what the two functional groups are (so they can be the same (e.g. two chlorines) or totally different (e.g. chlorine and an OH). It's only their positions that matter - if they are on the same side, is a cis, and if they are on opposite sides, it's a trans. Hope that answers your question. -- DrBob