User talk:ElJoe0

Tungsten
Is there a speciall reason why you deleted the Oxidation state II- of tungsten from the article ? --Stone (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that "perhaps The most common formal oxidation state of tungsten is +6, but it exhibits all oxidation states from −1 to +6.[17] An oxidation state of −2 has also been reported in 2008.[18]" would better be phrased as "The most common formal oxidation state of tungsten is +6, but it exhibits all oxidation states from −2 to +6.[17][18]" As the source says that it appears in a -2 Oxidation state, meaning that "An oxidation state of −2 has also been reported in 2008." is redundant? ElJoe0 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, but without edit summary hard to get.--Stone (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, kinda new to editing, ElJoe0 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)