User talk:Element16

ph -> f
Hi Element16. Good work. But .. do you think a bot could do that? If so, you could ask User:Rifleman 82 to run his bot on it on a regular basis, would make it easier for you. What do you think? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the process is too subjective. I've been checking each article I edit to make sure that I'm not changing words in directly quoted material or journal article titles.  Also, articles that are non-science related but are related to non-American topics should stick with the British spelling.  With the javascript I'm using, it is partially automated anyway.  If you think it can be done in a more automated fashion, that might be nice.


 * Thank you for the nice award.

You are right, did not think about quotes. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Caesium v cesium
I have been making consistent all the Caesium records as you have been doing for Sulfur. However this has generated a debate at Talk:Global Positioning System where one editor in particular asserts that the WP:SULF does not apply as the reference to a cesium clock is not a reference to the chemical Caesium. I would welcome your having a look at the debate and commenting on it if you have a moment. Thanks

Velela (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment there. I was planning on moving on to aluminium and caesium when I finished with sulfur, but maybe it will all be taken care of by then. Element16 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Put the aluminum articles back
These are referring to Aluminum's use as an engineering alloy, and not as an element in chemistry.

WP:ALUM does not apply.

The sillyness of what you've done is illustrated by changing an external link to from "Aluminum association" to "Aluminium association". I can assure you that the spelling of the US association which standardizes the alloys is "Aluminum".

Please put them all back. I would rather you revert and then discuss this, but i'll roll all your changes back out and then discuss if necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'll look at my contributions, you'll see that I've restricted my spelling changes to articles that are chemistry-related. I think WP:ENGVAR takes precedence for other articles.  As noted above, I've been making a conscientious effort to apply the spelling changes only to where it is appropriate, such as not making changes to links, journal titles, etc.  If among the thousands of spelling corrections, I have made an error, I apologize.  You simply need to politely point out the mistake and I'll correct it.  It's ridiculous to suggest rolling back all my changes.  I think articles on alloys are clearly chemistry-related articles, but I can see that others might disagree.  If you disagree, I'm willing to politely discuss it, if you are.  Element16 (talk)
 * You changed the article names for 6061 aluminum, 7075 aluminum, 2024 aluminum, 5086 aluminum and in at least one place the "Aluminum Association" trade association name, in addition to all the internal links pointing to those articles, and created redirect links for some redlinks with the -ium spelling.
 * I can accept that these are mistakes, but your statement that you're not doing it where WP:ENGVAR applies is simply not true.
 * I've moved some of that back, though I'm leaving the element name in the articles where it refers to the element as a chemical per the WP:ALUM spelling. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Though I think those articles are chemistry-related and should go with the international spelling of the element, if you want to change those articles back, I won't object. Element16 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Aluminum Association disagrees 8-)
 * I have restored them to the standard alloy names, but left the element name as "-ium" per WP:ALUM in those articles, as I agree that in that usage it's chemical. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the feedback.Element16 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. When you recently edited Alum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iron sulfate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)