User talk:Jcwf

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\talk 23:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Paramagnetism
Jcwf, Thanks for the great writing and editing and for the time you have donated to this project. I will review the page again when I have more time but I wanted to let you know that I got your note and that your edits seem sound and certainly well intentioned. I think your level of expertise is above mine on this subject. A general comment that is true of most pages in Wiki is that we should quote more sources and use footnotes. External links can be added too. Thanks for all you do. Electricmic (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Spectroscopy
Hello. It appears that I excised that information, but I could not tell you why. I am well aware that the information is legitimate and I suspect I removed it because it was redundant or did not fit in the article's structure as it was in April and I was more concerned about resurrecting a badly-formatted article. I have tried to clear up the classification issues surroundings spectroscopy before, but it appears that whatever existed of my attempts has long since been removed. Srnec (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Materials techniques
Yes, I agree with you that this serves a very useful purpose. Where's the proposals page? Can you post me a link? I'm in biomaterials/bioengineering, studying characterization techniques and getting blown away with how many there are and how many acronyms I have to know. I won't be able to do much editing due to school right now, but will add when and what I can. I think you're doing a good job putting these all in one place and editing articles here and there. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what a portal is, though. I would like to call it "characterization techniques," which is what I do, characterize materials and matter.  I'll keep adding as I can.  The microscope articles are in sad shape, but many have editors dedicated to the article as it is, no matter what is wrong or missing, or, some are devoted to the biological sciences, even for techniques with extensive use and histories in the materials sciences.  I do both, but most of my background is in materials science.  --Amaltheus (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Surface methods list
Hi there, Go ahead if you want. I initially created this page for people searching via search engines who need a navigator through the jungle of acronyms (as it is sometimes not bothered on scientific pages to elucidate them). It can be supposed that one knows his own metier. The list that is supposed to be merged is ordered and very comprehensive but please make sure that a relink remains in place if you intend to carry out the merger.Slicky (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Scientific techniques
I'm not discouraging the potential project/portal (or whatever). I'm just saying that you raised it on a wrong page (heck, the title on that page says it's portal, yet that page is for WikiProject). If you want a discussion, head towards village pump OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass spectrometry article categorization
Since the category Mass spectrometry is a subcategory of Scientific technique, any article in the Mass spectrometry category does not need to be in the Scientific techniques category. See WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT. So Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry‎ doesn't need to be in Scientific techniques since it is in Mass spectrometry. I also noticed that you put Field emission microscope into Scientific techniques when a better move might have been to put Category:Microscopes into Scientific techniques. I don't want to throw cold water on your scientific techniques effort, but be careful not to over categorize. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to throw water it would be nicer to state things without warnings such as "be careful not to ovecategorize." The warning to be careful did not enhance the message.  It seems to me the urge to scold is often so great in Wikipedia interactions that the message gets lost.  Are you saying categorize only in the lowest subcategory on Wikipedia in general? --Amaltheus (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the the village pump my categorization was very rough: I simple wanted to make sure I got all techniques covered somehow, so that we could later find them back more easily for proper organization. Some had no such category at all, others have tags that lead to categories that contain techniques but also other things. Sometimes it is the physical phenomenon, sometimes the instrument (the microscope rather than the -scopy) that gets categorized and that does not make things any easier to find. One of the things I would like to achieve is to come at a more sensible and less chaotic system of entry. I have been searching in wiki for a week or two now and I still discover useful bits and pieces here and there. It's a mess. Kkmurray.

Jcwf (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did look at various categorizing schemes on Wikipedia. My thought is developing a series of sub-categories might also get you a better assortment of the techniques, and maybe others will want to edit within a subcategory.  The techniques subcategories might be by the various things you suggest for the template.  I might do Characterization techniques using ionizing radiation, Characterization techniques using optical light.  --Amaltheus (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to scold. Sorry if it came off that way to anyone. It was meant to be advice and encouragement. I think that organizing scientific techniques is a great idea. If you are not already aware, there are of a couple of related Wikiprojects: WikiProject Mass spectrometry, WikiProject Spectroscopy, and WikiProject Chemistry. If you need any help, peer review, etc., those are good places to go. Good luck. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunbittern
No worries. I was going to format all the names, but with a study that big et al- -ing is sufficient. Feel free to copy paste the ref elsewhere if you cite it again (I tend to copy paste cites all the time). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure is. I like the Kagu and Sunbittern being off on their lonesome together. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hindi Spelling
Hello Jcwf. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. February is written like this: फ़रवरी and pronounced farvarī. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence n stuff
No, cladistic analyses are always inductive logic-based inference. The evidence in this case is simply the linear DNA sequences, aligned or not. These tell us that most "higher waterbirds" are very closely related, to the point of apparently forming a clade, and that this emerged close to the K-Pg boundary. But how close? The evidence doesn't tell us that, though it is more compatible with some possibilities than with others, and of course it roundly refutes some.

So we need inferred hypotheses. They may or may not be correct however, being very sophisticated best-guesses resting on certain assumptions. If any of these fails (and at least one of the two key assumptions that differ in the study you cite from most others is known to fail more often than not), the entire inferred hypothesis gets knocked from its foundation - it may still be right, but there is no way to tell whether the results are right if the analysis made a key assumption in error.

You'll probably want to check out this, this, this and this. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Properties and uses of metals‎
Hi. When content is merged to another article we need to keep the history for attribution purposes, so we just redirect. See WP:MERGE for more info. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Metallic bond
Great work with the article. I have submitted some suggestions at Peer review/Metallic bond/archive1. COntact me if you ahve any questions. Nergaal (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

History section
I think you are misreprenting Hume Rotherys views and Hume Rothery himself. He was a very good communicator and very enthusiastic that is true, but you make him sound like some sort of opportunist who was later debunked following the (sic) "debacle" of the free electron theory- bit hard don't you think? Aren't scientific models supposed to be used and then "pushed" so that they fall over - I thought that was part of the scientific process. --Axiosaurus (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Well thank you for your response.--Axiosaurus (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Respiratory System
You make an excellent point regarding the need to make this article less centered around humans/mammals. In this manner, the article will likely also become more specific and accurate. Thanks for the suggestion and for leading me to the page indicating that effort was being made to "clean up" the entry in general. I have expertise in some areas that have been discussed for clean up so will attempt to make more improvements. LLDMart (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tissue (biology)
Some nice entries are beginning on this page regarding plant tissue. Might you be willing to take a look and provide a bit of guidance regarding unity of style for the page? I'm getting lost in my lack of plant knowledge such that I'm having trouble revising. I think an outside set of eyes would be helpful. LLDMart (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hagfish
The hagfish is a very interesting suggestion. I assume you are suggesting it as an excellent example of the external production of mucus. Definitely worth adding. I've only begun to assess the best manor to present such information about mucus in animals that are not mammals. Mucus is also highly relevant in frog skin, for example. LLDMart (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Here is a discussion involving the grim edit war over List of battles by casualties. You might want to join. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

CO
Hi Jcwf,

I'm afraid I don't really understand the resonance structure of CO. I drew my picture from what I saw in a text book, however it was a very old text book, (80s). Are you saying that the other two structures should be different? Or just that they are not significant enough? I would be happy to redraw the diagram if you could show me other structures. If you think the other two are not significant enough then either remove it yourself or start a section on the CO talk page. Although I think even if they are very unstable and have a low chance of occurring practically but are still theoretically present then it is an interesting diagram, but maybe the explanation about them should be changed. -- Borb (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Borb,

A text book huh? Ouch..

The problem becomes visible if you add the remaining lone pairs. If you do the Lewis calculation you get:


 * ER (electrons required for octet rule)= 2*8 =16
 * VE (valence electrons available) = 4 (C) +6 (O) = 10, so total number of pairs = 10/2=5

The whole point of Lewis structures is to make up the difference by sharing electron pairs:


 * SE (shared electrons) =ER-VE= 16-10 = 6, so total shared pairs = 6/2 = 3
 * This means the number of lone pairs (LP) should be 5-3= 2

The only way you can do this is |C≡O|, because you need three bonds.

Yes you can write a structure like C=O but that would leave 3 lone pairs like |C=O>. If you now count the electrons surrounding C, there are only 6, not a full octet. The third 'resonance' is worse. It leaves C with only 4 electrons...

True resonance structures involve equivalent structures that each fulfill the octet rule. There is only one of those in this case.

(Of course, the whole Lewis story is primitive bunk compared to MO theory but that is a different matter) Jcwf (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you really got me going on this. (Reason being that I teach CH101...) I went to the old books to see how people dealt with this story before MO theory. Moeller says

A triple bond in [..CO..] was first suggested by Langmuir [..1919..] as more compatible with the properties [..] than a double bond. It is more probable however that the actual structure is a resonance hybrid involving the three structures [..your pic.. reference Linus Pauling (!!) The nature of the chemical Bond 1940..] ..

Although these structures are markedly different they are rendered about equally important because of the opposing effects of number of covalent bonds and charge separation.

...

The bond distance of 1.13A [..] indicates only that the triple bond arrangement is not incompatible [..lol..]

Linus, Linus... Tsk,tsk... The later application of MO theory has shown nothing but a triple bond and at least in this version of Pauling's story there is nothing about octet rules being violated....

What it all really shows is that Lewis theory was woefully inadequate to describe even simple molecules like CO anno 1940.

Unfortunately educationally Lewis and VSEPR are there to stay, simply because you can teach a freshman how to push a few electrons around but not how to do quantum mechanical calculation on his calculator.

That begs the question what should wiki do?

I think the best thing is to hang out the dirty laundry. And so your pic may well be useful, although it would be more useful if the lone pairs would be added. Then we could say that CO has baffled people for a long time, Langmuir proposed the triple bond structure and that it obeys octet but has an idiotic formal charge, that |C=O> looks more reasonable from a charge point of view but is not octet and that all these problems can only be resolved with MO theory. When written that way the story may actually help freshmen understand that Lewis and VSEPR are not the 'truth' but a quick and dirty model only. Unfortunately wiki often creates the opposite impression

CS1 error on South African energy crisis
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South African energy crisis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Jcwf&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1188595092 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_African_energy_crisis&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1188595092%7CSouth%20African%20energy%20crisis%5D%5D Ask for help])