User talk:Physchim62/Archive 2009

Message from PC
Happy New Year to all and sundry! Physchim62 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerium(IV) oxide
Hi Physchim62, thanks for the great work on Cerium(IV) oxide, can you make the green text black ? (Color_blindness, not everybody is able to read them. Cheers Mion (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or another color that works :-)Mion (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't change the colour myself, as it's coded into a protected template. However it's only experimental, so I shall definitely try to get it changed – I don't like it myself, as it is fairly meaningless to most readers! It distinguishes CAS numbers which have been verified by the Chemical Abstracts Service, and there must be a clearer way to do that. Physchim62 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoi Physchim62, one week past, and so far no better solution popped up, but if I find one i'll let you know. Cheers Mion (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a temporary move, I've darkened the shade used on the template, so that Daltonians should see it as 'bold grey' instead of 'bright nothing'. Another option is to use a toolserver link to convey the information to editors (and give better service to our readers) while the validation project is going on. As the original bright-green text had been in place since last October, I don't see that our attempts to change practices are particularly slow. Physchim62 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all -:), Cheers Mion (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Icesave Dispute
Hi, you have asked me for a backup on my edit in the Icesave Dispute wiki. Here you can find the article from De Telegraaf: http://www.telegraaf.nl/overgeld/rubriek/sparen/article2771885.ece Henwen168 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that backs up your edit. Amazing bureaucracy! I'll put your comments back in, with the reference. Best Nieuw Jaar! Physchim62 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pointless?
I believe that there is defintely a point for an extended periodic table article, or at least a merger with the main article. I see no merit in the idea of complete deletion. Although i also see no point in having the table filled with as-of-yet undiscovered elements.98.108.79.82 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case, why include the g-block (the "extension" in the extended periodic table) when none of its members have yet been discovered? The supposed electron configurations in the 'article' are also incorrect: nature isn't as neat as that! Physchim62 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Next prime minister
As you may already know, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is widely expected to become the next prime minister. Haukur (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, seems more and more likely. I've just seen the news about the official negotiations between the SDA and the Red-Greens. Still I'm not feeling very inspired at the moment, I think I'll have lunch before writing anything ;) Physchim62 (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And on the "haha, expert on fish pathology" front the new finance minister will likely be a geologist and the new prime minister a stewardess. Haukur (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that means the new government is looking for "rock-solid" foundations to the economy, and not a sign that Iceland is heading back to the Stone Age ;) Who is the candidate for what must be one of the worst jobs in European politics at minute? Physchim62 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The final decision probably hasn't been made but it is persistently rumored that Steingrímur J. Sigfússon will get that particularly delicious piece of the mud pie. It's also traditional for the leftmost party (i.e. the Socialist party and its descendants) to get the finance ministry on the (relatively rare) occasion that it makes it into government. There has always been a large rift between the leftmost party and the other parties on foreign policy issues, making it challenging to come up with a (non-kamikaze) plan where they hold the foreign ministry. Haukur (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'd better clean up his biography as well then, although Jóhanna's is more urgent for the minute! Physchim62 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * She definitely is. The lesbian thing seems to have some legs abroad (though it's not at all what she's known for over here). It would be great if you could work in her "my time will come" comment - people who know just one thing about her here will know that line.


 * And yes, geology is good for a few puns. Haukur (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great work so far. Some Gallup popularity statistics here: She was also by far the most popular minister back in 1994 ("Jóhanna bar ávallt höfuð og herðar yfir aðra ráðherra í mælingum Gallups um ánægju með störf ráðherranna"). Haukur (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Heilög Jóhanna
The Beeb manages to get the "Saint Jóhanna" thing wrong. It's not an affectionate nickname used by her supporters - it's mostly a barb used by her opponents. Comparing her with St. Joan of Arc (Icel. Heilög Jóhanna af Örk) is intended to cast her as a naive fanatic, unlike the cunning and realistic "art of the possible" types in the other camps. Now, as it turns out, the reason "her time has come" now is that the public has turned very sour indeed on the cunning plotters among the politicians. Suspicions of corruption and scheming are rampant. The mood is exactly right for a person who, whatever her faults, is widely believed to be incorruptible and completely dedicated to public service. It will be interesting to see how she'll handle the compromises inherent in the job of PM and whether she can remain popular in what, to borrow a wording from you, must be one of the most difficult jobs in contemporary European politics. Haukur (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The real losers in all of this seem to be the Left-Greens. They get their bums on ministerial seats, but will they be able to cope with the disappointment of their grassroots supporters (and a section of the protesting public) that they can't just renegotiate the IMF loan or wipe out other debts with the stroke of a pen? Otherwise, the Alliance gets a new virginity under Jóhanna, and the Progressives seem to have played a stormer: their barely-out-of-adolescence leader gets to seem like the guy who guarantees the new coalition won't do anything too stupid, while avoiding any responsibility if things go wrong. Even the Liberals have managed to appear as responsible politicians, simply by keeping their mouths shut! (no doubt they are licking their lips at the chance to pick up some of the right-wing anti-EU Independence Party voters at the election) In the meantime, you can see which were the really unpopular ministers in the old government – they're the ones where their civil servants have already (on a Sunday evening!) replaced their CVs on the ministerial websites! Physchim62 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some good points there but it's still really hard to see how this will play out. I don't know about the Liberals - they're so fragmented and unfocused and really have not found their voice in this whole affair. But there's definitely a market for a right-wing party not responsible for plunging the country into the abyss so if they can get their act together they could probably do well. Maybe they need new leadership.


 * Some political cartoons here: The one today is meant to show the worldview of the LGM. The one from November 26 is priceless, it shows Geir trying to balance Davíð and Ingibjörg and has him noting that he intends to keep doing this until the end of the four-year term. That this didn't work out was not entirely surprising. Haukur (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that Steingrímur had managed to make a bloody fool of himself in front of a (marginal, left-wing) Norwegian newspaper (and doubtless elsewhere) before even taking office. Personally, I like this one from 30 January: I might see if I can upload it under fair-use if St. Jóhanna's article is expanded a bit… Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Árni Matthiesen notes that 'the geologist takes over from the veterinarian' and everyone laughs." So THAT'S the problem: they all spent too much time reading Wikipedia and not enough time running the country! :P Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for your contribution to the discussion at WT:PHARM:CAT. I replied to your comments. Thanks for your work on wikipedia, and I enjoyed reading your userpage. kilbad (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied... kilbad (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just trying to help! We've had (and have) similar questions in WP:CHEMS, so I'm know some of the WP-technical difficulties, if I can put it that way! Physchim62 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mole (unit)
You have reverted my "good faith edit". Thus a referenced source is replaced by "The name is assumed to be derived from the word Molekül (molecule)." Surely an assumption is less encyclopedic?

According to the Oxford English dictionary, molecule is derived from the word 'mole' not the other way about (mole 1390, molecule (French) 1674):

1867 J. ATTFIELD Introd. Pharmaceutical Chem. 22  Equal volumes..must contain equal numbers of molecules (the diminutive of mole or mass (literally little masses). 1893 J. ATTFIELD Chem. (ed. 15) 465 Our conception of the structure or constitution of masses or moles of matter, or of particles or molecules.., are nothing more than conceptions.

Regards, Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Firstly let me apologise: I should have brought this up on the talkpage, but I got distracted and then forgot.
 * The derivation from "molecule" is more than just an assumption, it is the etymology given in most dictionaries (but see also below) and there is a plausible scientific reasoning behind it. The problem is that the word "molecule" is not being used in its current sense. Allow me to try to explain!
 * The word "molecule" itself undoubtedly comes from the Latin moles meaning a mass or an amount of matter. It was coined in Medieval Latin as molecula by Pierre Gassendi in the first half of the 17th century (probably 1649, but I haven't been able to confirm this yet), and makes its first appearance in French in 1674. It was originally used in something approaching its modern-day sense, linked to atomism. The etymology is obviously a coined diminutive of moles.
 * Dalton's atomic theory was obviously qualitatively different from that of the Epicurians, simply because it was (is) quantitative! In the early 19th century, you see the terms "atom" and "molecule" being used almost interchangeably. Avogadro himself used the French "molécule" in his 1811 paper expounding Avogadro's law, long before it became clear that the species he was referring to were "molecular" in the modern sense.
 * However, throughout most of the 19th century, there was a dispute between those who believed that atoms had a physical reality and those who felt that they were simply a useful heuristic (nobody disputed that the idea was very useful for practical chemistry). If you wish to see a snapshot of the dispute, you can find a translation of the proceedings of the Karlsruhe Congress (1860) here.
 * Before the dispute could be resolved, which wouldn't fully happen until the early years of the 20th century even though the number of 'doubters' grew ever smaller, the French chemist François-Marie Raoult made a number of investigations of what we now call "colligative properties". If you look at his 1882 paper on freezing-point depression, you find a completely different sense of the word "molecule". Now the word is being used in the sense that we would use "mole", so the molecular weight really is the mass of one of Raoult's "molecules". By this semantic trick, Raoult sidestepped the debate as to whether the tiny, unobservable ojects are real or not, and concentrated on what can be measured, placing himself in what we would now call the "anti-atomistic" camp.
 * A decade or so later, Ostwald included Raoult's techniques in his Textbook on Procedures for Physicochemical Measurements. The now-famous term "Mol" appears (without further explanation) exactly in the section where he discusses the determination of molecular weight by cryoscopy and ebullioscopy. Elsewhere, Ostwald uses the German Molekül in the same sense as Raoult, so the idea that "Mol" was meant as a self-evident abbreviation is far from fanciful. Merriam–Webster's proposes that the etymology is from Molekulargewicht, which is accurate by current diemnsional analysis but not (IMHO) by the standards of the late 19th century.
 * Finally, the citation you give for Attfield is very interesting. 1893 is the year in which Ostwald published the first edition of his textbook, and four years prior to the (next-)first English usage of mole that I've been able to find reference to. I don't think Attfield was actually using the term in its modern sense, as he was obviously an "anti-atomist" from the short quotation you supply. However it does indicate that the term as in use already, before Ostwald coined it. I'd be grateful if you could let me know where you found the citation from (OED 2nd edition?).
 * I hope this answers your query: if not, please don't hesitate to comment, either here or on Talk:Mole (unit). Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxides
I noticed that you are inserting an old ref (possibly the original one) to the X-ray structures of alkali metal oxides. I am not sure why you are doing this, since the current articles cite a comprehensive monograph (Wells Structural Inorganic). It was my understanding that such tertiary sources were preferred because they present more context and they minimize clutter. So what's your thinking. BTW, thanks for switching so many binary phase names to remove the Roman numerals. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHARM:CAT
Thank you very much for all your feedback regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. I responded to one of your comments regarding "Dermatological preparations." I also italicized our comments to make the draft a little easier to read... I hope that was ok. kilbad (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have posted an updated outline with level 2 ATC category names and would appreciate some feedback if you are available. kilbad (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

IMF slaves
You may (or may not) enjoy this little video: Haukur (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On a more serious note, there's a new poll out on 'trust' to public figures: Jóhanna remains popular and, to a lesser extent, so does Katrín Jakobsdóttir. And the "apolitical experts" gambit seems to be paying off, Gylfi and Ragna are popular. Not a lot of love for the other politicians, especially embarrassing to see our supposedly "symbolic unity figure" of a president being so widely distrusted. Haukur (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad FAs
Maybe you should head down to WP:FAR and help weed out all the really bad ones.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I proposed an FAR, I was told it was "out of process" because the article happened to be on the main page at the time: that doesn't really motivate me to do any more. But I will point out that your comment is typical of the current system: "you should work harder to make the system function properly". It is exactly that attitude that makes me wonder whether it is not the system itself which is at fault! Physchim62 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is just a simple rule to prevent sometimes, a person who does it deliberately to create a scene, but also secondly for a good faith thing so that people don't accidentally make something that gets out of hand. A few days hardly changes anything, unless you are of the opinion that PR damage etc from a bad article is only relevant on TFAs.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have a way to make it harder for such shabby little soapbox pieces to make it onto the Main Page in the first place. After all, most articles get only an infinitesimal fraction of the attention of TFA, both from readers and from editors assessing them. Physchim62 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stopping, for now at least
I think I'm going to stop responding in the threads we have going. I don't see much new information being exchanged, and after we found out the extent to which we agree, neither of us seems to have succeeded in changing the other's mind about anything on which we disagree, so it seems a good time to take a break. Thanks for some interesting conversations, and good luck with your attempts to improve FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite understand. Thank you for your comments, which have certainly made me think my proposals through more thoroughly. Whether the proposal prospers or not, it has certainly caused a lot of debate, and that is not in itself a bad thing. I wish you happy editing, and I hope that you can find a way to share your obvious (and even your less obvious) skills with other editors who work in your area ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion
Hi PC, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, I hope you can present your views. I know you "unsigned" earlier, but the page is staying under the name you proposed - thanks for helping us through that. We made a mistake in how things were set up, but at this point I'd like just to get on with the discussion. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz FAC
I have resolved all of your comments. Ceran thor 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet you haven't! I've got some more for you! Physchim62 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

rm vandalism
Whatever it is, it is not that. But I wonder if you (too) are being deliberately provocative? Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Suleman
I have washed my hands of that page. Wikipedia has run away from home and joined the circus as far as I can tell on this one. The argument that she should have a page is not utterly crazy, but most of the content on the current page has no place in an encyclopedia. I attempted to remove the names of her other children (i.e. the non-octuplets), and consensus was that they should remain. Good luck, I'm afraid that you're going up against the Octomom Fan Club. SDY (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

merger tag shenanigans
See, since I am suggesting it be merged that way, then it has been suggested. Anyone can suggest at anytime any merger they wish, and tag accordingly. Also, switching around the tags is going to direct people to the octuplets talk page, instead of the mother's talk page where discussion is already underway. Luckily, I have already left a note there in case someone got confused. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't like my edits, you are free to consider them as opposition to your proposal. The AfD debate will stay active this time, that's for sure. Physchim62 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't consider it a big enough deal to bother edit warring with you over it, just pointing out that what you did was technically incorrect. Since you think the entire article should be deleted, I'm not sure why you are even participating in the merger discussion.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Capellades
De res! un cop que ja he acabat amb la provincia de Tarragona, ara estic fent escut de la provincia de Barcelona. Pots mirar el progrès aquí: Armorial municipal de Barcelona. Ens veiem! --Xavigivax (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Suleman AfD
You are now straying into the realm of personal attacks at this AfD. You have stated your position about fifteen times now, getting slightly less civil each time. Need I remind you that you were the one who wanted to re-open this debate and give it the full five days. Frankly, when I came to your user page I was shocked to discover you has been here so long and still had such a poor understanding of Wikipedia's most basic policies of user conduct. Just because the debate is not going in the direction you would prefer, it does not give you the right to start hurling personal insults around. I think it would be wise for you and Raeky to just back off and let the debate run it's course. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I make no apology for replying to your comments on the AfD debate as you and another user have been doing quite systematically to comments you disagree with. If you think I am attacking you personally, I am sorry, but the subjects of our articles deserve at least the same same respect as other Wikipedia editors, and it is exactly that respect towards the human subjects of these articles which I believe is lacking in your approach to their editing and in your general comments at the AfD debate. My own comments are an attempt to get you to realise the inconsistency of your own position. After all, would you really want an article of this type to be written about your mother – if not, what is your justification for writing it, because it would need to be a very, very good one. Physchim62 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * None of which makes it ok to behave as you have. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Personally I am a bit concerned by [this diff, saying that another editor is "unhealthily obsessed" with someone probably doesn't help the discussion tone much. Thanks!--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-sequiturs are us
Latest poll shows significantly increased support for applying for EU membership and significantly decreased support for actually joining the EU. Haukur (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two possible logical reasons for this that I can think of:
 * many people think that negotiations are inevitable but won't lead to a satisfactory result, so they say they're in favour of negotiations to get the issue of their backs;
 * membership negotiations might lead to the EEA agreement being revised, or at the very least help to avoid future misunderstandings such as the one over the Deposit Guarantee Directive, and so per se would be a good thing.
 * There's also the possibility of melatonin excess during the Icelandic winter… Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the discrepancy between the figures for "want to join" and "want to negotiate" merited a small piece in the Catalan press today! Physchim62 (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kudos
I've been trying to keep up on the A-class discussions and like where the consensus is turning. While doing that, I realized just how much time and care you and Walkerma have been expending to try to keep the discussion on track and productive. Please keep up the great work! :) -- mav (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The credit is entirely Martin's! I'm far too proactive to be an effective moderator in this type of discussion. I have merely stepped in from time to time when Martin couldn't be around, attempting to provide syntheses as neutral as his are. My own opinion is that we've come a long way (and further than we got with the RfC), but that we are still far from consensus on some fairly major points. Speaking of which, I must go and think about an intervention on the question of "conflicting gradings", something I've been putting off for a couple of days now ;) Physchim62 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Metrification
Hi Physchim62, Thanks for your welcome note. I started "repairing" and writing articles several years go, but since the end of November 2008 I've been doing almost only WP:GAN reviews; and cleaning up after the vandals. We can get Metrification up to GA-level. Its a transparent process: I can either correct it or review it, I can't do both (well if someone else nominates it and I get to review it, which can't guaranteed, I can review it and correct it provide it is close to passing at GA-level). It was FA-level once, but I don't do (have not done) WP:FACs it seems like too much hard work. You have some interesting articles in WP:measure at B-class that could possibly be made GA-level.Pyrotec (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I don't like the article metrication – more a personal feeling than an objective assessment, but it seems to concentrate too much on the politics of the process, rather than sticking to the facts and letting the reader decide. It's also somewhat undersourced, and sources for the article in its current state would be hard to find. If I were WikiDictator, I'd scrap it and start again from scratch!
 * All the same, there are some interesting measurement articles which could be easily brought to GA standard. Kelvin needs expanding, but the informaton that needs to go in is easy to find (for me, at least!). Candela is a nice introduction, although I don't really have the technical knowledge to expand it further. There are also some articles on physical constants which I haven't tagged yet (I'm tagging by hand, so I've probably only tagged about a fifth of measurement articles so far): Planck constant and Avogadro constant are two of mine which probably need copyediting before a GA nomination but which are essentially complete and worthy articles. I'llhave a think and try to find a suitable candidate for nomination this week sometime. Physchim62 (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with moving "History of Molecule"
There is a growing consensus that the "History of the molecule" page should be renamed. I would like to use the name "History of molecular theory" however this name is already set up as redirect. As a admin can you perform the move? M stone (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Move
Hi, I called for discussion a week ago. Nobody appeared. Since you appear to disagree, I will stop until the issue is discussed. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer is hardly the most widely viewed page on Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be better to post this at WT:CHEMS, WT:PHARM and WT:MED to try to address the points you raise. Physchim62 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, this is why I posted it in 8 pages (not in one). But since this appears to be not as obvious I expected, I will post it to WP:RM and WT:CHEMS.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw you posted it also at WT:PHARM and WT:MED. Well done. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Class templates at WP:CHEMS
Hi, I saw your username while investigating these templates and I know you've been involved over at WP:AWG as well, so I figured you'd be a good person to ask. I notice that WP:CHEMS is using the following class templates on a number of pages: Chem A-Class, Chem GA-Class, Chem B-Class, Chem FA, Chem Start and Chem Stub. Given that these do not correspond to the project's banner template, I was wondering if it would be OK to replace or redirect these to the standard class templates (A-Class, GA-Class etc.)? Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a problem, but these are not templates that are doing anyone any harm: I will give it another go to get WP:CHEMS to standardize, at least to the classes which it accepts! Physchim62 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've just been doing a bit of cleanup with regards to obscure and largely unused class types, and these seemed pretty much redundant to the standard templates. PC78 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Draft European Union laws
I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding to articles/subcategories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with db-author.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the category was empty partly because of miscategorization, partly because some of the article subjects have now been enacted (things like the CLP Regulation). It never has many articles, as there are few proposals which are deemed interesting enough to have an article on them while they are still proposals. It strikes me that it might be at the wrong title as well: Category:Proposed European Union laws might be better. In any case, I think a CfD discussion would be better than any speedy deletion. Physchim62 (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If brought to CfD, it would probably be deleted, but that says more about CfD than it does about this category. I mean it no harm.  Thanks for repopulating it. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JBsupreme (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My opposition to your request for speedy deletion is valid until 2359 (UTC) tonight. Can that be said for the rest of the arguments being raised? Physchim62 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ATC categories: How many levels?
Your comment would be appreciated here. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing comments
Hi Physchim, don't get too wound up by SandyGeorgia's comments about "non-reliable sources". I think most of us know that articles deserving of the ratings B, GA, A or FA (and even a few below that) tend to be based on good sources and have much useful information. In these cases a copyedit can be a good way of improving Wiki articles as a whole. What I believe she was referring to was some of the dreadful material you sometimes get on start/C class articles. I'm sure you'll agree that, in these cases, a rewrite would be more appropriate than a copyedit. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Electron PR request
Greetings! The article Electron has been posted for a second peer review. We have tried to address all of the concerns that came up during the first FAC for this article. As you participated in this FAC and did not support the article's promotion to featured status, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look and see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you!&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches
I am sure we could find some point to disagree about if we tried hard enough ;) -- Birgitte SB  16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, after several hours of careful analysis, I think we disagree on the topic of "attribution of authorship through the edit history". I only point this out for old time's sake ;) Physchim62 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Exista
Yesterday my wife got a takeover offer for her share in Exista. They're buying us out for 20 ISK, approximately €0.12. Fun times. That's still more than we got for our Kaupþing shares! Haukur (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Glass chemistry
Hi, I tried to summarize glass chemistry topics here on the glass taskforce page. Please inform me, if you have further suggestions. Another idea: Would it be possible to put the glass chemistry topics in a box somewhere on the chemistry project page or one of its sub-pages? Thanks... -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects WikiProject Free images, WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an excellent idea! I will check it over for potential problems, and then add my SEAL of approval ;) Best wishes, no worries about the plagiarism thing, we disagree, such things happen ;) Physchim62 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization
If available, your comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. ---kilbad (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

 * Next time when you update an article massively, please use the template. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ex-finance minister update
This may amuse you. Árni M. Mathiesen, being no longer in parliament, has been hired as a veterinarian for a clinic in the south of Iceland. Lucky guy to get employment in his field in the current economic situation. What created the vacancy? Well, the guy he's replacing just got elected to parliament... Haukur (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! We just need to find a job for this man now… Physchim62 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nitpickers
As a Guardian of the Main Page, I assure you we need rules and software to determine what articles are long enough (although I wish the rule were simpler) because we don't have time to debate the merit of each nomination in detail. Note that most nominations don't get evaluated for several days until there is time enough. If a nomination is considered boring or misleading, no rule will help decide; but article length is a routine, automatable issue, and we don't have time to re-invent the length rule every time. Your article, of course, is now long enough. Art LaPella (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

CAS story
Exciting news about the collaboration with CAS! Do you have time to write up a little story about it for the signpost? It could run separately or we could add it to News & Notes, if you don't have time to write something long. Let me know! Thanks, --phoebe / (talk to me) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! User:Physchim62/Signpost. Physchim62 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I left some suggestions at the article's talk page.--ragesoss (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Physchim62 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicely written up, PC - thanks! Sorry I've been so quiet, I'm trying to mark 250 lab reports by Tuesday morning....! Walkerma (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quickly written up… there's nothing like working to journalistic deadlines! I was just about to email you – feel free to change anything that needs changing! Physchim62 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having just read over 45 sophomore papers, my English skills is totally shot. really. it loox awsome. (In fairness to my students, they're not too bad!)  thx2u, Walkerma (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Walkerma: ha ;) psychim: it looks awesome! Nice work. I use CAS & SciFinder all day at work (we have the chemistry collections in the library I work in) so I am super excited about this professionally, too. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * {| class="messagebox"

I think its only my second barnstar in four years' editing… and an Original Barnstar as well! Thanks! :) Physchim62 (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Original Barnstar.png
 * Your piece on WikiProject Chemicals and peripheral issues was well-written and interesting. I'm not sure if experienced Wikipedians think themselves to be too mature for barnstars, but here's one in recognition of your writing nonetheless. :-) Good work! Regards, AGK 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * }

I, too, came here to say "great article" - really well written, and great job providing context so that even those of us who didn't even know there was a WP:CHEMS understood it all. :) Stevage 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey foot still in use
I have revised the tense in one spot in your contribution to the Mile article to avoid indicating the U.S. survey foot is no longer in use. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't! Indeed, I copy-pasted over from United States customary units to point out that it is the "statute mile" in 24 states (but not federally, as the federal government works in kilometers). However, the idea that the statute mile must be based on the U.S. survey mile is false: the statute mile is 1760 yards, however you define your yard! That was the problem that led to the international yard in the first place. Physchim62 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Deprod Self-hatin Jew
I have removed the prod tag from Self-hating Jew, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! .--Peter cohen (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice
I liked your bold edit here. What did you mean by "more work doing on it"? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "More work" would be formally justifying that there's nothing worth incorporating into the PFOS article (or including it, if there is something that is worth salvaging). We should really have some better references for PFOS as well: there must be plenty of secondary sources now that it's been listed on the Stockholm Convention. Physchim62 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it about formally justifying. PFOA is the DuPont/C8 redirect article though. I'll find an English language reference for PFOS and Stockholm. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad getting mixed up between PFOS and PFOA. I've replaced the Czech link in PFOS with the official Stockholm Convention press release, which I happened to have lying around ;) This is the sort of useful data which could be referenced in the article! There is surprisingly little data at the EU level: I can't even find the justification for its Annex 1 listing, which usually pops up quite quickly when I search for these things. Even more surprisingly, PFOA doesn't even have an EC number. Physchim62 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me give a concrete example of bad referencing on PFOS! Reference 8 links to a journal editorial, when the original paper is open access. Even worse, we report the study which shows a small but significant correlation between PFOS/PFOA exposure and birth weight, without saying that the effect is small and without noting the occupational study which found no effect at all (Grice et al., 2007). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these things aren't reproductive toxins – PFOS has been classed as "Repr. Cat. 2" by the EU, which means pretty conclusive animal data – I just think we need to be very careful in our balance and selection of sources, so that the final conclusion is indisputable. Physchim62 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks for the link. I referenced the journal write-up to show some notability so as to not rely on the primary source. Thanks for bringing up Grice. Interestingly Washino observed this inconsistent association only in female infants. EINECS# added to PFOA. (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't read TOO much into these human data – the effect (luckily) is very small, only just statistically significant, which easily explains why it wasn't found in the occupational study. It's a bit of a case of "we know PFOS is reproductively toxic in rats, so we looked in humans; and if we looked really hard we could just see an effect." Of course, a tiny effect multiplied over the world population with a persistant polluant is still a serious public health problem, but we get the message across better by not overstating the sources!
 * Journal editorials are usually very bad sources for articles, because their role is to "hype" the papers published in that particular journal. I'm rarely too worried about the notability of individual chemical compounds – I work on the principle that if we can find stuff to write (encyclopedically) about it, then it's notable! PFOS is obviously notable now, because of it's Stockholm listing; PFOA is notable because it's similar to PFOS but it might be slightly different (no one's quite sure yet). If I wanted to prove the notability of a compound, I would prefer articles in mainstream, large-circulation newspapers or unconnected science magazines such as C&EN rather than journal pieces.
 * Congrats on finding the EINCES for PFOA, I was pretty sure it must have one but I couldn't find it earlier (partly because I was searching under the wrong IUPAC name – heptadeca… instead of pentadeca… – doh!) Physchim62 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Toxic
well, you know... i've copyed the content of an other template, so that cat 'n dog think isn't really mine. i was more concerned about the layout of that old one.XD and eeeeh about that WP think.. i don't really know what that is. whatever it is.. i'm in

--Allstrak (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I left you a new msg there :-) M aen K. A. Talk 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Air_France_Flight_447
You're getting way over the line in calling another editor "stupid." I agree with you that he's wrong, but personal attacks & insults are not the basis of editing here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor had three options to choose from; unreasonable, stupid, or excessively omphaloskeptic with regards to Wikipedia. My own opinion is the third, and I've engaged a conversation on the editor's talk page to try to address this problem. I will note that the phrase "Therefore your suggestion that I "did not conduct the most simple research" is a great steaming load of crap." was not considered actionable by ArbCom. Therefore, I will grant no respect to "the basis of editing here" other than that required by WP:CIVIL, especially not when it is claimed in their own defense by administrators who should know better. Physchim62 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Riiiight. Whatever bone you have to pick with the admins, I'm not involved. Just please don't drag it to unrelated talk pages. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WP:5P is not enough for some editors, who feel that Wikipedia is a world in itself with its own rules. Some of those people have got to adminship, which speaks more for the quality control procedures at WP:RFA than anything else. Physchim62 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Chemistry interview
Hey there. I've been doing interviews for the Signpost's WikiProject Report lately. Would you like to be interviewed as a representative of WikiProject Chemistry?
 * Yeh, no problems with that! You might want to contact as well, as he's been doing chemistry related stuff even longer than I have. Physchim62 (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! The interview will take place here. Instructions can be found at the talk page here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

 * Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?


 * Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. You're comments would be much appreciated! Thanks. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
please check my last msg :-) M aen K. A. Talk  23:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Common Chemistry
Hi PC, I left this message for Beetstra - I'd like to get this issue resolved soon if possible. If he can't make it on Tuesday for IRC, are there any alternative topics you'd like to discuss? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypertension GA review
Hi, sorry for disturbing you, but I wanted to ask you, if you still want to continue reviewing the article, or shall I recruit someone els to continue that, thank you :-) M aen K. A. <font color="0134B1">Talk 12:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Iliad
Hi; could I draw your attention to the deletion-nomination of Iliad? Thanks! <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Organic metals
I posted that remark on WikiProject Chemistry out of frustration. The editor is skillful, tireless, and armed with a full arsenal of tools and tangential info that will foil virtually any effort to objectivize the article. There are trolls, and then there are super-trolls ... So we just have to wait until we find an editor in this area. It's really not that important, just irritating.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Contact
Regarding Article: Hydrazine sulfate

In your current statement on hydrazine sulfate, you are accepting false in formation, information that totally misrepresents the medical literature. As an example, the current piece on hydrazine sulfate states that the California (Harbor-UCLA) controlled clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate found no statistically significant survival improvement or other benefit due to this treatment. Whereas what the California studies actually reported was: "For PS [Performance Status] 0-1 patients survival was significantly prolonged with hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (P = .05). The survival at 1 year was also significantly increased (P = .05) for hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (42% v 18%, respectively" (Journal of Clinical Oncology 8:9-15, 1990). Nothing could be clearer than that.

The current piece on hydrazine sulfate is full of misrepresentations such as the above. They are offensive to the American public and in their lack of accuracy may actually be very harmful to our cancer patient populations. Please contact:

Joseph Gold, M.D.                   Syracuse Cancer Research Institute Phone: 315:472-6616 E-Mail: jg@scrinst.org

Judytaylorgold (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really must ask you to desist from spreading your propaganda on Wikipedia. Dr Gold has a history of vehemently attacking any studies which don't agree with his point of view, and this history goes back to the mid-1970s. Your own contributions to this Wikipedia article have been particulary partisan. I have absolutely no qualms about reporting the facts as seen by the vast majority of the medical profession in several countries. Neither have I any qualms about trying to prevent you from spreading a minority view outside of any weight which it might reasonably carry, especially as you are now deliberately selecting your results from a post hoc evaluation, a sure sign of a pseudoscientist. Physchim62 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Diamond
I was reading an advance copy of your interview, and agreeing with your concerns about the article referred it to WP:FAR. As what I know about chemistry could be written on the back of a postage stamp, you might want to go take a look (or not judging by what you say). Sorry, I haven't got the link handy but it'll be on the article talk page. Anyhow, Cryptic suggests this might pre-empt a slight adjustment in questions and responses for this week's interview. Cheers, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Amount of substance
Thank you for your input on my recent additions to the article, and for your support. I was inspired to make the additions upon reading Vanessa Kind's ''Beyond Appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas.

I'll be using AOS as a short for “amount of substance,” and NOE for the (actual) “number of entities.”

Now, to be sure, some of the stuff I wrote probably belongs to a different article (if, indeed, it belongs to any), but let's postpone the issues of irrelevancy for now. I would like to concentrate on possible inaccuracies and misleading statements in the article.

I should note that I changed the article a bit further since you posted your message. However, I think that if your comments were relevant to the previous version, then they are still relevant to the present version. I could be wrong about that; nevertheless, I will take your comments as referring to the present version.

Let me now turn to your comments themselves.

While I really appreciate your comments, I am a bit confused by your positive statements about the nature of AOS and its unit: I thought the text was fully consistent with them; emphasized them, even. I'll get back to these positive statements, but first let me address what seems to be your main concern overall:


 * I think you're falling into a common trap, that of equating amount of substance with its common unit, the mole.

I find this comment surprising, because I really thought I had taken quite some pains to avoid precisely that fallacy. Could it be that what you find objectionable is actually the following point about the relationship between AOS and its unit, which I make or imply in several places in the text (though not in these exact words):


 * apart from considerations of history and habit, the advantage of EOS over NOE lies solely in the fact that the unit for AOS was chosen so that to measure AOS, one needs to measure a ratio of (macroscopically large) numbers rather than to measure the absolute value of a (macroscopically large) number.

In the text itself, I say this:


 * what chemists actually measure is masses and volumes of samples, from which they are able very precisely to compute the ratios of the numbers of entities in different samples (thanks to such chemical principles as the Law of definite proportions, the Law of multiple proportions, and the Law of conservation of mass). In particular, it is possible to measure the ratios of the numbers of entities in chemical samples more precisely than it is possible to count the absolute numbers of entities.

However you feel about the above statements, I hope we can at least agree about the following: the fact that chemically detectable samples contain huge numbers of atoms is not an argument favoring AOS over NOE. The SI system has prefixes that were designed to handle huge numbers; using e.g. “0.7 Yunits of H2O molecules” (as in “yotta-units”) to denote “$0.7$ H2O molecules” would be just fine. One does not need to invent AOS just for the purpose of accommodating big numbers.

Now regardless of whether you agree or disagree with all this, surely you are not saying all this amounts to equating AOS with its common unit? But if you are not, then I don't see where in the text do you see that fallacy.

The only statement I can find in the text that might seem to be flirting with that fallacy is this:


 * What makes amount-of-substance a useful quantity—even though it may seem that it is a redundant one, given that it seems to contain the same information as does the total number of entities—is its particular convenience in real-world experimental settings, a convenience that largely stems from the specific choice that was made for the definition of the standard batch size.

I added the emphasis here; I guess the biggest suspect is the final (emphasized) clause. But I do think the clause is correct; it is just a rephrasing of my point above. After all, if the standard batch were chosen differently—say, if it were set instead to 1 (or, million, or septillion (1024))—then any advantage of AOS over NOE would disappear? (Since with such units, the measurement of AOS would no longer involve a measurement of a ratio of numbers, but rather a measurement of an absolute number?)

Much of the rest of what you wrote, which above I called “positive statements about the nature of AOS and its unit,” seems to be an attempt to convince a skeptic that AOS and NOE are distinct, and that AOS is more convenient than NOE. But where in the text does one find disagreement with any of it? Here are some of the statements you wrote:


 * 1. Twelve grams of hydrogen will always react with 96 grams of oxygen to form water, no matter what units you use to measure amount of substance.

In the section Rationale for amount-of-substance being measured in terms of number of entities rather than in terms of mass or volume I give the example of 16 g of oxygen interacting with 16 g of hydrogen, and leaving 14 g of hydrogen unused.


 * 2. Similarly, the Avogadro constant has very little to do with amount of substance as such, it is a function of the system of units which you use.

Now look at what the text says:


 * the standard batch size (i.e. the unit of measurement for the amount of substance) is chosen to be equal to the total number of atoms in a 12 g sample composed entirely of carbon-12 atoms; the name of this batch size is the mole.… The number of atoms in 12 g of carbon-12 atoms, i.e. the number of entities in 1 mol, is informally called Avogadro's number.

(Emphasis added.)

Just where do I contradict your point 2.? Does the text here not emphasize the arbitrary nature of the choice of units?


 * 3. It's a little bit like saying that the distance between London and New York doesn't change if you measure it in miles or kilometres, although the figures ("numerical value") will be different.

Does not the mention of batches of (possibly) different sizes emphasize precisely this?


 * 4. The reason we don't use plain numbers for amount of substance is exactly the same reason that you don't count the electrons running though your computer while you edit Wikipedia – you couldn't!

Well, perhaps I can add a statement to the introduction to further emphasize this point. But did you not notice that there is a whole section called Rationale for preferring amount-of-substance to absolute numbers? There it says,


 * it is possible to measure the ratios of the numbers of entities in chemical samples more precisely than it is possible to count the absolute numbers of entities. This has the peculiar-sounding consequence that it is possible to know the number of moles in the sample more precisely than it is possible to know the absolute number of entities in the sample.

O.K., perhaps I should not have used the phrase the number of moles in the sample; I have already changed it to the amount of substance (in moles). I included the “(in moles)” part because, once again, if AOS were not measured in moles or something very much like them, if it were instead measured in, say, septillions (1024), then the AOS measurement would not be a measurement of a ratio of numbers, and all the benefits of it over NOE would evaporate.


 * 5. …you don't measure a "number of electrons" or a "number of molecules": you measure a different quantity which theory assures you is proportional.

Once again, the whole section Rationale for preferring amount-of-substance to absolute numbers is essentially about that.

So I don't see how the text as a whole contradicts your statements. Is it that you think that the introduction in particular does not emphasize some of these last few points enough? Well, I tried to do it there but I could not make it short enough, and so I added a link (“For reasons why this is such a convenient definition, see below.”) Perhaps a discussion of these points should be in the introduction after all, but even so, do you really think the introduction in its present form suggests something that contradicts your points? I really don't see how it does.

My final question for you is this: You hinted that some parts of the text may be outright wrong. Which portions of the article do you think are outright wrong, as opposed to, say, misleading or irrelevant?

Thank you again for your input. I hope we can work through whatever issues there are and end up with a better article. Reuqr (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. There's a lot to go through, both in your contributions to the article and in you comments here, so please forgive me for not giving you a full response straight away. In any case, it is a subject which deserves to be considered calmly.
 * There is a huge fallacy that measuring AOS in the laboratory is, in some way, "counting molecules". Unfortunately, that fallacy is inadvertently propagated by many, many introductory texts which are actually trying to demonstrate that counting molecules is practically impossible. The major challenge of the article is to explain the concept of AOS without falling into that trap, but also without falling into the out-dated concept of the equivalent.
 * Another problem that I spotted on a quick scan of your additions is in the way of calculating molar mass. Again, it is a very common shorthand to say that molar mass is the molecular weight expressed in grams, but that misses an important point: the system has been designed so that the molar mass constant has a trivially simple value of 1 g/mol! It doesn't have to have that value, that's just a value that's been chosen to make the calculations simpler. The physics and the chemistry will still be the same, whatever set of units you choose to use.
 * I'll go away and have a look at the links and sources you've provided, and see what I can do to remedy these problems. Feel free to challenge me if you think my edits are incorrect: at the very least, that would mean that I haven't explained myself sufficiently. Physchim62 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I know it's a lot of text.


 * One question about overall philosophy. Is this what you really want: to postpone the mention of atoms for as long as possible, in order to emphasize that AOS is a useful and important concept even for those who might not accept the atomic theory? (I guess at one time most people were in that category). That it is not only possible to measure AOS without having any idea how many entities it corresponds to (a point that is already in the text, here), but that in fact it is possible to measure AOS without even accepting that there are such things as elementary entities?


 * Could this be the point you were trying to make all along—that the connection between AOS and NOE is not at all a definitional one, but that it was a scientific discovery? (A discovery which, as it often happens once discoveries become well-established, we now find built into the very definitions of the concepts?) This reminds me of heat in thermodynamics: you can measure it and discover true and deep facts about it, including that it is a form of energy, without knowing anything about the underlying atomic reality.


 * If this is sort of what you have in mind, here is what I think about it: it should be in the text, but much further down (perhaps mentioned in passing in the beginning parts, with a link). Given that all likely readers will believe atomic theory, I think these points are somewhat subtleties for connoisseurs. Even the official SI definition emphasizes that the identity of the entities must be specified; we can deconstruct this definition somewhat, and perhaps we should, but not right at the start of the text.


 * You wrote
 * The major challenge of the article is to explain the concept of AOS without falling into [the trap of describing the measurement of AOS as some sort of 'counting of molecules'], but also without falling into the out-dated concept of the equivalent.


 * AOS vs. equivalent


 * I suppose here you are concerned that one might confuse the actual definition of AOS (where the AOS-unit is defined through a standard-mass–sample of a standard entity) with the following 'definition':


 * 1 AOS-unit of X is the AOS of X that will react with y grams of atom Y.


 * If you want to warn against this mistake in the text, that's certainly fine by me. I suppose the text could make the point that X may well be such that (i) it forms multiple compounds with Y (so the definition would not uniquely specify the AOS of X), and, worse, (ii) it could be that none of the X-Y compounds are such that the numbers of X-atoms and Y-atoms enter in a 1:1 ratio. So no matter how the ambiguity in (i) is resolved, the 'definition' will never give what we know to be the correct result.


 * The text could emphasize the fact that AOS measurements depend on longer chains of reasoning and multiple pieces of evidence (an example would be nice here, if you know how it's actually done in some case).


 * AOS vs. NOE


 * Is this the principal thing that is making you uneasy: the word counting? It seems to me that the best way to deal with that is to emphasize the distinction between making measurements of ratios and making measurements of absolute numbers ('relative' vs. 'absolute' measurements), and the text already emphasizes just that.


 * Molar mass


 * In the section Basic relations, the text explains why it is so that molar mass is the molecular weight expressed in grams:
 * This practically convenient correspondence is the result of the fact that it is the mass of the same atomic species, carbon-12 atom, that is used in the definitions of both the mole and of the atomic weight.
 * Probably the text should mention that this is indeed by design. But don't you agree that it is clear from the text that it didn't have to be that way, and that it wouldn't have been that way if the units were chosen differently? Reuqr (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the reason why I didn't introduce the molar mass constant in the Basic relations section is that I had decided that the consequences of AOS being a dimensionful quantity will at first needlessly confuse beginners. Probably the dimensions and the molar mass constant should be mentioned after the section Formal definition.
 * This is a bit analogous to teaching Second Newtons Law as $$F = m a$$ without emphasizing (at first) the fact that the units of force could have been chosen differently (say, as the weight of something—not necessarily the standard kilogram—at some standard location, say Greenwich). In this case the Second Newton's Law would have the form $$F=k_{F}\, m a,$$ where $$k_{F}$$ is the “universal force constant.” One might mention this in class, but probably not the very first time one introduces the law. Of course, in the case of AOS, SI system dictates that there is indeed a nontrivial dimensionful constant in the game, whereas under SI, $$k_{F}$$ is 1 and dimensionless. Reuqr (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FA Proposal
I don't think you ever asked me to look at or comment on your proposal (or if you even know me), but I read it through after seeing your link on the Content noticeboard. I think the idea has great merit. I'm no FAC apologist, but do you know why I'm there? I'm there because I wanted to help make sure our featured contest is the best it can be. Since that was/is the "gateway", there I went. However, if there were mini-gateways all over Wikipedia, I would surely go where my interests lie instead, and work on articles. FAC is a relentless timesink, and lately I've thought my time could be better spent working on articles instead of reviewing them. When I do work on an article, I want it to matter.

Previously, I couldn't get past the effect your ideas would have on the quality of prose. But now that I read your proposal, I see that the job of improving the prose of future featured articles would probably be easier. Much easier. Because I wouldn't have to waste time on articles of little importance that would never end up being read by anyone anyway. That's probably a negative way to state it, but I think you get my meaning. Why should editors spend hours bringing the fourth track of the fourth solo album of so-and-so's bassist up to par when the topic itself means nothing?

I like the idea much better that a project like Roads would come forward with an article and say, "This is a really important road with a rich history, we've worked hard on it, and we'd like it to appear on the front page." Then we can work on it and get it ready. Win/win, really. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLAGIARISM
Not sure how you came to your conclusions about the motivations behind the people who've worked on it, but here's a short summary on this end. About a year ago a prolific contributor turned out to have major problems: copyvio, plagiarism, and outright misuse of sources. The editor's response to feedback was hostile. The community insisted upon a conduct RfC instead of a sanction, which meant that person had another month to create new problems nearly as fast as a team of editors could solve them. The matter ended in a siteban, of course, and also ended in at least one editor burnout among the cleanup team. Ultimately thousands of edits needed to be removed, which was difficult because they spanned back many months. In the aftermath the plagiarism proposal got started, because something was clearly lacking in the site's approach to that problem. This spring a group of editors--mostly featured article writers--ran a piece in the Signpost called "Let's get serious about plagiarism". After another very large copyvio/plagiarism problem came to light (over 2000 articles affected) I started the RfC about promoting the page. After the RfC had ended, when a newly promoted administrator turned out to be a plagiarist and the matter went to RFAR, that's when it became a guideline. The tone of your posts is more than a little surprising. Would you like to talk? Durova Charge! 15:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You, of all people, should know that I'm always willing to talk, despite our obvious differences of opinion! Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very glad to hear that. :) Actually I've done minimal editing to the proposal itself, in order to avoid accusations of ownership.  At the request of other editors contributed a bit about images during early drafts.  With regard to other areas have really left other editors to work out the actual wording.  It seems intuitive that some concept of plagiarism is necessary in the guideline structure (especially after dealing with a few of the more difficult instances of it), yet also that wiki structure etc. is going to make the in-house model slightly different from academic models.  Over the long term, have found site culture to be a bit slow on the uptake regarding sourcing issues.  First noticed that three and a half years ago in the events that led up to the creation of Template:Cite check.  Durova Charge! 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you mean to tell me that WP:RFA can't pick out the bad apples from a small bunch of admin candidates? Despite submitting them to the various degrees of WikiTorture, in a process more appropriate for the Spanish Inquisition than for a collaborative project to write an encyclopedia? Never! Next you'll be telling me that WP:FAC cannot find simple grammatical errors in the second paragraph of a featured article candidate! That WP:FCDW (where the Signpost article was hashed together) would let such an FA get onto the main page with such an obvious mistake! (oops, that's already happened, this year) SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
 * Well, yes and no. If I were WikiDictator, I'd abolish WP:FA to free up resources for useful things, like writing a free encyclopedia (the current FA process adds nothing to that goal). I'd also introduce a varient of the 3RR rule at WP:RFA: if you emit more than three !votes for admin candidates over a twelve month period, you'd get an automagic six month ban from the entire project. Instead, we get constant pleas for ever more resources for these metaprocesses – tighter FA criteria! more brazing coals for the admin candidates! – to the detriment of our fundamental project goal.
 * We don't need yet another guideline to tell people not to plagiarise. Whatever problem there is (and I believe that it is being vastly overstated by the proponants of this guideline) can be dealt with through existing tools. The moralising tone of much of the debate reminds me of the Pedophile userbox incident a few years ago! Do we have a policy that says that pedophiles can't edit Wikipedia? Of course we don't, that would be silly: we accept that some of our editors are pedophiles (simply by the laws of statistics), and that there's nothing we can practically do about it except manage the site accordingly. If they step out of line, they're banned, simple as that. If the editors who are worried about supposed plagiarism cannot see the advantages of a simple and pragmatic approach to the issue, within our current framework, then I don't think they can be trusted with the additional powers they're asking for. Physchim62 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the somewhat tardy response. After a recent RfA (which went to RFAR and a newly minted admin's retirement) it became apparent community consensus that existing guidelines were not sufficient. That individual was not violating copyright and appeared to be genuinely unaware of basic norms for what plagiarism is. In fairness, her ignorance was somewhat understandable because our guideline and policy structure didn't actually define plagiarism or express that it's a problem. The concept may seem intuitive to you and me, but at the encyclopedia anyone can edit--yes there are people who do need that explained. A year ago WP:PLAGIARISM redirected to WP:COPYRIGHT, which did not define plagiarism.

Shortly after that RFA similar concerns arose regarding two other RFA candidates, although the wiki-winds had shifted and neither subsequent instance attracted so much attention. Yes, closer attention to plagiarism is one of the few ways that making RFA tougher would be a good thing. I'm a pushover at RFA who almost always supports, but registered an oppose and a neutral within the last month over this issue.

FA would be a different discussion; you're right FAC is much too focused on copyediting and MOS rather than article quality. Yet there seems to have been an instance of a GAN a couple of months back where a candidacy passed in spite of plagiarism because the nominator pointed out to the reviewer that site policies and guidelines had no prohibition against plagiarism. Unfortunately I heard of that secondhand from a reviewer, and don't recall the name of the article. Durova Charge! 05:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry for underlying data
Hello Physchim62,

I'm searching for the ECB data you used to calculate the ISK/EUR exchange rate - the ECB doesn't provide it any more under your inserted link. Could you mail me the underlying data?

Thanks a lot!

Kind regards Oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.116.77 (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% which data you're talking about, but the ECB data I used is still there, I've just checked! This link will take you directly to the correct tab on the page. I worked from the CSV file (225kB), uploading it into Excel then deleting all the data which didn't interest me. My own dataset will not include the latest period (not that there've been any changes since last December in the ECB rate), so you might prefer to download it yourself: in any case, that way YOU get to choose which data is interesting! The data is also available in XML format here.
 * I've remove your email to protect you from spamming, but I've still got it noted if you have any problems. Physchim62 (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the horizontal lines on File:ISK exchange rate Sep-Nov 2008.png, I actually used Central Bank of Iceland data for those, as it was more convenient: you can access the data sets here. Before the current economic crisis, the differences between the two rates were negligible, especially when you take an average over time. Any slight differences in daily rates before last October are due to the fact that the CBI takes its spot rates at 1045 Reykjavík time while the ECB takes its spot rates at 1415 Frankfurt time. Physchim62 (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the very fast answer, I found the data.

Kind regards Oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.116.77 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Boulton
Which areas did you feel needed a little more explanation?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The one I noticed particularly was the condenser on Watt's steam engine: it is utterly incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't know the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Watt didn't either, he was lucky) to understand why a condenser would be important! However, I left my comment deliberately vague, in the knowledge that there will be non-specialists reading the article and that it is their comments you will need to listen to, not mine… Physchim62 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought so, but for the same reason wanted not to lead you. In my view, an explanation of why a separate condenser is superior, in the Boulton article, is rather out of place.  What I will do is put in a Main article--Watt steam engine in that section so the interested reader, if any, can follow up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Mattisse and BrianBoulton have done considerable work since you commented, not to mention me. Can you come take another look at the article and see if you are ready to take a position?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sodium hydroxide
Hi Physchim62, thanks for your comments on my talkpage. I have replied there.Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The "thanks for being incredibly helpful" thread
The catalyst here is your pitching in at CP when I was gone—I think it's the first time since I started contributing there that I've come back from a trip to find no backlog—but truly this is one of those "many things make a mountain" situations. :) I appreciate that you are frequently available to discuss copyright matters and concerns, and I value your input. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks! Thanks for the thought! But now I've got two barnstars on my talk page, I must do some archiving quickly – otherwise some newbie editor will come along and think I'm part of the cabal… and we both know that little could be further from the truth! Physchim62 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Glass transition
Have you checked this out ? -- logger9 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Light year kerfuffle
I was doing a history merge of the light-year page, so all the edits are in one place. "ZOMG" is probably the best way to sum up the situation. Part of the page history was at light year, and some of it ended up at Template:Convert/kly, of all places. I'll spare you the gorey details unless you *really* want to know them ... even now I can hardly believe what happened. If selective deletion was available to admins, I could've done all the required work with three page moves; if I had read *all* the early edits before history merging, which isn't necessary 99% of the time,I could have done it with two page moves. Alas none of those things happened so it took me *five* page moves to sort everything out. Oh BTW I've fixed the image caption on your talk page. Graham 87 11:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops I meant RevisionDelete. Graham 87 11:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NPG kerfuffle
Did you contact the NPG yourself as yet? I didn't as yet today (it's 9pm here), plan to tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't, for similar reasons to your own. I also took your advice to calm down a bit ;) so I've concentrated what time I could on the Signpost article to appear very shortly. I will try tomorrow, but probably by email rather than telephone. I saw you blog piece BTW, I will comment when I think I have something to say. Physchim62 (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimers
I more or less agree with you. It's been Signpost practice since very early to use them, but I've never thought they were necessary even though I've continued using them since becoming editor.

On the open letter, I re-added the less-disclaimer-y to emphasize that it's not simply the Signpost trying to describe the situation as it is, but an opinion on how things ought to be. I know that GerardM disagrees with it strongly because he doesn't enough of the GLAM perspective in it, and others may as well. On the other hand, some Wikimedians who don't mind making enemies and see a public dispute with NPG as a good thing for free culture might object to it for opposite reasons.--ragesoss (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Public records
I saw your comment on a blog: "'All records created by Gallery staff in the course of their official role as employees of the Gallery, including writing, photographs, videos, slides and electronic data, are Public Records according to the Public Records Acts of 1958 and 1967. As such they belong to the Gallery and the Gallery owns copyright.'

Public records? Anyone for a Freedom of Information Act request?!"

Does this mean an FOI request could force them to provide all the PD images they have at maximum resolution? If so, has anyone made this request yet?--ragesoss (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it to be a serious tactical suggestion! Such an FOI request would be pointless at present for (at least) two reasons:
 * The National Portrait Gallery would certainly refuse, and it is possible that the Information Commissioner would back them up. The cost limit for a single request is £600, and they would certainly allege that it would cost more than this to provide all the images. The NPG would also doubtless argue s.43(2) of the Act: "Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)."
 * The important point in the dispute is the copyright status of the images. There's no point in anyone having all the files if they're going to end up in the same situation as Derrick Coetzee! It is important to point out that the NPG is behaving immorally, possibly even illegally, but it is even more important to show that they are wrong in their reading of UK law.
 * So I was only trying to point out the hypocrisy (IMHO) of the NPG with that comment. They use the moralising argument of the Public Records Acts to requisition the copyright of their individual staff members – instead of including an IP assignment in the contracts of employment as is standard practice in the UK – and then claim that only they can determine how these "public" records be used.
 * While we're on the subject, I found another little gem on the NPG website last night that someone might like to blog about (I'm too busy replying on other people's blogs to write my own!)

The Reference Collection owes its origins to the first Director, Sir George Scharf, who filled over 200 sketchbooks with meticulous pencil drawings of portraits held in private collections and acquired large numbers of portrait prints in order to build up an iconographical resource for the Gallery. So the NPG started out with a series of copyright violations committed by its first director… justified by the fact that they "built up an iconographical resource"… and now they want to prevent anyone else from producing a similar "iconographical resource". The hypocrisy of the "establishment" of my native land never ceases to amaze me! Physchim62 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Film series numbering controversy
You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series - Robsinden (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Diamond
Hi. Two months ago, you said that the Diamond article was in a "laughable" state and downgraded it to "Start" class for WPChem. Could I ask you to pitch in at Featured article review/Diamond/archive1? I understand your views about the Featured article process in general, but it would nice if you would help bring it up to professional quality in the name of article improvement. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Conductive Polymers
With due respect. What is your problem with my edits of Conductive polymers. I throughly document everything. Ad nauseum. I am also something of an expert, having published in this area from the early 1970's.  If you have some objections,  please voice them.Pproctor (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009
Hi

I think you are Nigel because of this: if I am wrong please forget this message.

I see you are presenting a paper at Wikimania 2009 and you live near Barcelona.

I am going to Wikimania too and I wonder if we have the same flight so we could share taxi from airport to the city and perhaps talk during the long fly.

I am flying from Barcelona to Buenos Aires on Monday the 24 at 13h20’ company Aerolineas Argentinas AR1161.

If it is also your fly please contact me otherwise see you at wikimania. You can find me easier in Gomà --CàlculIntegral (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What is Kaupthinking?
Glad you asked. The top video here, apparently made to rally employees of the bank, has some answers. Haukur (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Benzyl Alcohol
Hi there. There was a small mistake on your addition to the benzyl alcohol article with the reference tags. The quote marks weren't all there, which left the page with some big, red "Cite Error" nonsense text (see [], down in the "use in health care" section). I found the problem and corrected it. Also, great cleanup work on the article. With your vast Wiki history I'm sure it was a fluke, but I figured I'd let you know. Elbreapoly (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, thanks for correcting it! That's what comes from doing clean-up (I'm working through high production-volume chemicals at the moment), and then adding content while assuming that it's as good as the stuff you've just cleaned up! Physchim62 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
Please attend to Arbitration/Requests/Case and comment if you wish. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Spanish comarca flag and arms
Template:Spanish comarca flag and arms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bonus question
You "bonus question" made me smile, just when I needed one. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 03:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That little gem? It comes from French teacher-training, which was an "interesting" experience I went through a few years ago! It had us all sweating for a while, I can tell you that! Physchim62 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And dictionaries are logically impossible because every definition requires knowledge of the definitions of all the words used in the definition—and those words all have their own definitions, and so on and so on. Yet, defying all logic, dictionaries are extremely useful to readers and writers alike. Among other things, it shows how analog we humans are. Finell (Talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Personal attacks are not tolerated here on Wikipedia. Your recent edits have been in breach of the "no personal attacks" policy, which can be found here. If you continue to attack other editors, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Urban XII (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Data pages, the extinction coefficient, and you
Regarding pages such as this one, that reference the extinction coefficient disambiguation page (under Spectral data); I'm thinking that should really point to molar extinction coefficient but wanted to ask you first. Do you agree? Thanks, <font color="#990000">Ja <font color="#000099">Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's been taken care of by another user. --<font color="#990000">Ja <font color="#000099">Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk 09:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Validation
I have gone into the next step of validation, I have posted the new progress to User talk:Walkerma, could you weigh in as well? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Idelphonse Nizeyimana
nice work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Venkatraman Ramakrishnan
Just wondering why you think his US citizenship is controversial. Have you seen any reference that says otherwise ? (I agree that this is not a big deal, and the question is mainly to satisfy my curiosity). Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say controversial! If he's a US citizen, that's his right and it doesn't bother me one way or another. Personally, I saw U.S. citizen on the Nobel site this lunchtime (Spanish time), which is why I added it to his page. Later, that comment was removed from the Nobel site, and only his UK residence appears. That makes me think that the US citizenship was a simple mistake by the Nobel Foundation (these things happen, as we all know). Given that the passport(s) that he holds is irrelevent to his great achievements, I'd say we just shut up about it until we know a little bit better, no?! Physchim62 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was mainly curious to know why you thought the information was, lets say, suspect and you have clarified that. I agree with you that this is no big deal and I'm not going to rush to re-enter the information into the article ... but when the person's own CV, the Nobel prize information sheet (see page 9), and dozens of newspapers on at least 3 continents confirm that he is a US citizen and there is no source (AFAIK) that claims anything else, I don't see how we will ever know any better.
 * Thanks for the congrats. I am mainly playing around with the tools nowadays to familiarize myself with the interface and options - will go rogue later. ← (attempt at humour) . Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My fear is that we might be distributing false information, which is a big risk in a current event. As the info is not really important to the story, I just took it out. The Swedish Academy of Sciences took it out before we did; and don't forget that dozens of newspapers over three continents (at least) are getting their info from Wikipedia ;) We will no doubt have an answer sooner or later, but it takes a while to check sources, even the personal CV that you have linked in your message! Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside: It's always fun to see how so many countries and institutions rush to spotlight their connection, however trivial, with each new Nobel laureate. Human dramedy at display. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, verified, he self-describes as a US citizen, that's good enough for me. Physchim62 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Use Talk to Support Your Edits.
Reverting supported and well discussed edits without so much as an effort to support your contention in Talk is unacceptable. Here is my rationale for adding the Category tag:
 * Yes, the cat is real and yes he clearly fits in with it. None of our cats are legally defined, we have 50 states each one having literally dozens of various sex crimes on the books. As with our one member Debra Lafave, "pled guilty to statutory rape charges stemming from her having sex with a 14-year-old"  another member of the cat for example,  "...he was convicted of unlawful fornication ...".
 * The defining thread seems to be sex crimes with minors ~ what we colloquially refer to every day as "child molestation" no matter the specific act with which convicted. And what of Mel Hall, "aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child" Clearly a sex crime with a minor ... but not child molestation? He was convicted of molesting a child, the specific type of molestation being the rape charge he pled guilty to. He fits with the members of the category to a T - LeFave and him are interchangeable.
 * The cat is proper, use this thought experiment to see why: What if a person had been above the age of consent in their country of citizenship, but below in their country of arrest? What if a person, and there are literally millions like this, was convicted in one country but was a citizen of another country - in which they had never lived? Look also at those members of the location neutral cat as child molesters. It's members also include one convicted  and , "sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for having sexual relationships with teenagers."

It's a solid and well supported argument based upon the reams of prior consensus that created and populated the various child molester category's over the years. My edit was absolutely in keeping with this ample precedent and synonymous grouping. Your edit was an unsupported mouse click.99.142.5.86 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should comment on this thread, and avoid any intemptuous additions of your own. Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pointing to a later effort by another editor opening a discussion that admittedly seeks to overturn consensus is not a substitute for supporting your edit. Indeed, it does not support your edit. Please reconsider the edit, or support it through discussion.99.142.5.86 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

SoL
(continued here to avoid mess at SoL talk): I think your The overriding problem with any modern measurement of the speed of light is the definition of a precise standard of length. is technically incorrect. You can't measure the SoL (we're all agreed on that, no?), you use it to measure distance. This is a terminological problem though, rather than a flaw in what you are really trying to say there William M. Connolley (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I'm making a technical error (although I'm at least as fallible as the rest of us!). Measuring the speed of light in metres per second is pointless, measuring it in astronomical units per second at least has some practical purpose. You might say that what you're actually doing is calculating the value of the astronomical unit in metres, and you'd be right as well. All I'm really saying is that the measurement of a length in metres and the measurement of the speed of light are the same experiment under the 1983 definition of the metre.
 * I reject the viewpoint that you simply can't measure the speed of light any more (see User:Physchim62/Speed of light experiment), because I would want to know in what way these astronomical measurements aren't measuring the speed of light in exactly the same sense that Rømer measured the speed of light. In any case, the 1960 definition of the metre was the overriding problem in the NIST 1972 measurement of the speed of light. Physchim62 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I reject the viewpoint that you simply can't measure the speed of light any more - ah, then we fundamentally disagree. Maybe this will clarify: you can repeat exactly the same measurements as, say, Romer did. But the result is not a measurement of the SoL but a measurement of the metre instead. Whether you measure in meters or AU makes absolutely no difference to the principle. All I'm really saying is that the measurement of a length in metres and the measurement of the speed of light are the same experiment under the 1983 definition of the metre - I'm quite happy that the same experiment is now valid; only that the thing you are measuring, and the thing that is your standard, have now swapped William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Physchim62/Speed of light experiment - this is circular. You want to measure the SoL, so you start off defining standards for the metre. But the current *definition* of the metre is in terms of the SoL. You can get round this by using a different system of definitions if you like, but then you aren't using the current standards. All that, of course, makes absolutely no difference to the experimental setup - all it affects is the interpretation of the results William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying that you can only measure length in metres. I disagree. Obviously, we usually measure length in metres or, at the very least, we convert our result to metres at the end of the experiment: but there is no law of physics which prevents us from using a different length standard. In celestial dynamics, until the last ten years ago, it was normal to construct ephemerides based on the astronomical unit: the most modern ephemerides convert everything into metres before doing the calculations (simply because there are now more data points expressed in SI units than in astronomical units), but that still requires a knowledge of the speed of light related to the heliocentric gravitational constant, that is the light time per unit distance, so that you can convert the orbital data.
 * I don't agree with you when you say that "the thing you are measuring, and the thing that is your standard, have now swapped", at least not when related to astronomical measurements. Rømer and Cassini calculated the time it took light to travel a distance equal to the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun. Modern measurements of the light time per unit distance do exactly the same, save for a slight modification in the definition of the astronomical unit in between times which needn't concern us here: what is important is that the astronomical unit is not defined in terms of the metre, the two definitions are completely independent of one another. Under the 1983 definition of the metre, calculating the light time is determining the value of the astronomical unit in metres: this is one of the beauties of the 1983 definition, that it removes a step from the measurements, and hence reduces the associated measurement unceratinties.
 * As for the circularity in my experiment, it is no more circular than any practical measurement. The metre has an exact definition, but that doesn't mean that we can measure metres exactly. Obviously, the experiment I describe is pointless, unless you're using it to calibrate your equipment, but it is possible to measure the speed of light against a "laboratory standard" metre, which is all that anyone has ever been able to do in the past.
 * Finally, don't forget that there's nothing particularly controversial in all of this. We shouldn't be looking to make a big deal out of something which is really just a minor change in a definition in a fairly obscure field of physics (length metrology), of no practical consequence for the vast majority of physicists let alone other readers. Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to read the defn of Astronomical unit carefully before replying William M. Connolley (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Astronomical_unit ? Physchim62 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, lets try to see: I think that likely AU and metre are equivalent, differing only in magnitude. Does your position alter according to which version of the AU defn is used? suppose we go back to it being defined as the semi-major axis: does that affect your position at all? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Also, I don't think you've responded to my criticism of User:Physchim62/Speed of light experiment as being circular. Do you think you have? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the astronomical unit, no, it doesn't matter which definition you use, nor which definition you choose for the metre: the point I'm trying to make is that the astronomical unit is defined in a way that is independent of the metre. It is defined in terms of the product of the solar mass and the Newtonian gravitational constant, both of which are constants in whatever system of units we choose. There is a time factor as well, but that doesn't seem to pose any problems in saying that it is independent of the metre, at least in practice. Physchim62 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, as far as the AU goes, you are calling it an independent unit of length. It can't be, of course, but I'll have to work on demonstrating that (there can only be one fundamental unit of length). Fundamentally I'm sure that your idea of shifting to a different nominally indep unit of length is doomed, but I accept that I haven't produced much in the way of convincing argument so far. Meanwhile, you've once again ignored my question re the circularity of User:Physchim62/Speed of light experiment William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi all. This is a very interesting discussion, I hope you don't mind if I add my opinion. William, the AU and meter are not "equivalent, differing only in magnitude" for the purposes of this discussion. The reason is that the AU does not have a defined value in meters, but an experimentally determined one, with an uncertainty. If the IAU one day met and redefined it as exactly 149 597 870 691 m, then you would be right (as would happen if instead of talking of astronomical units we were talking of yards, inches, or feet, which have an exact definition in meters since 1959). But currently there's no exact conversion, which means that you can indeed measure the speed of light in AU, which has the effect of also measuring the AU in meters at the same time, as the article about the AU mentions. --Itub (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, I'm not sure that I fully understand the AU stuff. If it isn't a defined distance, but is merely a measured one, how does it differ fundamentally from defining the metre as the width of a particularly large pumpkin? You can measure the SoL in AU if you like, or you can measure it in pumpkins if you prefer, but that doesn't measure it in metres unless you can interconvert. I'm yet to be convinced that the AU discussion is providing anything useful; I *think* it is just obfusticating, but since I haven't yet bothered fully understand the defn I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

General comment. Putting aside the specifics about the AU, the metre etc. etc. for a moment, one has to realize that Nature is described by certain laws of physics and that these laws are falsifiable. The laws of physics make nontrivial predictions. So, you can imagine doing two experiments such that the outcome of one experiment can be used to predict the outcome of the other experiment, that prediction being conditional on the validity of the assumed laws of physics. If these experiments involve measuring lengths in some way, and the laws of physics that make the prediction are very well established, then you can use either one to measure or define a length, the other experiment can be considered to be redundant. For practical purposes, however, it may be advantageous to use both experimental techniques depending on the circumstances. Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * May I butt in? The question is how Wikipedia's Speed of light article should treat 1983 definition of the metre. My limited imagination can only think of 3 reasons to measure the speed of light today:


 * 1) To increase the accuracy of existing measurements of the speed of light: We know that existing measurement is very accurate, but we like to improve things. Measuring to increase accuracy assumes that c is, in fact, constant. If the "real physical speed of light" were not constant, no one would talk about increasing accuracy; we would say that we measuring what the speed is today as opposed to yesterday. We do assume, for very good reason, that c is constant. So, if we successfully increase the accuracy of measuring c in SI units, we will have a more accurate realization of the metre; it will not change the exact numeric value of c in SI units. (If we increase the accuracy of c in non-SI units, the value of c in those units changes just like "the good old days".) More importantly, it will not (as some people seem to be saying) change the length of the metre, which is defined. It will mean recalibrating the most ultra-precise SI measuring instruments and will therefore change the values of some length measurements far to the right of the decimal point. This does not involve any tautology or philosophical question, does not change physics, and, most importantly for this discussion, is an issue of metrology that does not require exposition in the Speed of light article.
 * 2) To determine if the speed of light changed: We don't expect this to happen, but the universe if full of surprises. It relativity is correct, as it seems to be within its domain, a change in the "real physical speed of light" would change the metric of spacetime in such a way that we could not detect the change: the measured value of the speed of light, however we measure it, would remain unchanged (discounting experimental error). Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about a change in the speed of light; it is not a question that science can contemplate if it is undetectable in principle. This might be something to discuss in relativity, but it does not require exposition in the Speed of light article. (Or, maybe relativity is wrong. Someday we may discover that the measured speed of light increases or decreases by a factor of x. We'll know if that happens because everyone's GPS devices will suddenly go crazy. If that happens, we should update the Speed of light article. I'm not betting on that.)
 * 3) To determine if the speed of light varies with frequency: Variation with frequency would have to be very small, but it is something for science to study. That should be covered in the Speed of light article, and it is.
 * The conclusion is that 26-year-old definition of metre, as it pertains to the speed of light, is adequately covered in the article. To address one of Count Iblis's main concerns, overemphasizing the 1983 definition is likely to confuse high school students and other general readers, just as Tombe's and Brews' talk page posts confuse some Wikipedia editors on first encounter. Further, coverage of that subject in Wikipedia's Speed of light article is comparable to coverage in other standard reference works, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encarta. That is a clue that our article is on the right track. Finell (Talk) 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That has just confused me. You can't measure the SoL now, any more than you could measure the metre pre-1983. Pre-1983 (actually, can we go back to when it was a stardanrd bar? It makes the argument easier but changes nothing) you could compare the metre to various other objects, and thereby measure those other objects. Or you could divide distance by time and measure speed. Nowadays, you can't measure the SoL, but you can use it to compare to other speeds, or you can multiply speed by time and thereby measure distance. Is this just a terminological error on your part (in which case I would invite you to re-write your text above with the error removed) or is this a real difference of opinion? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a difference of opinion. Finell and I are saying that you can measure the speed of light if you have a length standard which isn't defined in terms of the metre, such a random metal bar for example. I would go a little bit further: if all I have to do to be able to measure the speed of light is change the definition of the metre (a human construct, after all), then it doesn't make any physical sense to say that I can't measure the speed of light. Such a measurement might well be pointless, but it is possible.
 * I disagree slightly with Finell's second point, that the speed of light is fixed by Relativity and so we don't even need to discuss the possibility of variation in the article. I don't think that much needs to be said, but we should point out that Relativity assumes an invariant speed, and that speed is assumed to be the same as the speed of light; that therefore any test of Relativity is also a test of the constancy of the speed of light; that tests of GR place an upper limit on the measurable time variation in c of about 2 parts in 1014 per year (Lunar Laser Ranging experiment). Put into proper prose, that makes one paragraph. I'm working on some material about the constancy of the speed of light, and I'll flag in at Talk:Speed of light when it's ready to be criticized! ;) Physchim62 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About point 2, I think that a so-called test of the constancy of the speed of light is not necessarily really such a test at all. The problem here is that if an experiment were to falsify Relativity and you have not yet found a new theory, then the interpretation of the violation can be ambiguous (i.e. dependent on whatever theory later turns out to be correct). It is then dangerous to use the old and just falsified theory (with some ad hoc modifications) to interpret what you are seeing. This is something that pops up from time to time in physics. Let me give two recent examples. Physicists have been trying to set ever sharper upper limits on the photon mass. In this article the interpretaion of some results yielding very sharp upper limits have been shown to be model dependent. And in this article the experimental/observational upper limits on the charge of the photon have been shown to be bogus. Count Iblis (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any single falsification of a theory is ambiguous, which is why Popper's view of the philosophy of science is incomplete (at least in so far as it describes how science actually advances): this is just a weak version of the Duhem–Quine thesis. Typically, a Popperian falsification is treated as an "unexplained phenomenon" until some new theory comes along. If the new theory only explains the unexplained phenomenon, it will most likely be rejected as an ad hoc modification: however, if the new theory predicts other new phenomena, these predictions can be tested. A classic example in the history of science is the perihelion precession of Mercury, discovered by Le Verrier in 1859 but not explained until GR came along (many other theory modifications having been ruled out along the way). Another one is the discovery of the finite speed of light by Rømer and his colleagues in 1685 but not universally accepted until Bradley's measurement and explanation of stellar aberration some forty years later. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

SoL: length standards
(going back) Finell and I are saying that you can measure the speed of light if you have a length standard which isn't defined in terms of the metre, such a random metal bar for example.


 * You can measure the "speed of light" in numbers-of-metal-bars-traversed/s if you want to, of course. But you can't measure it in units of speed, which are m/s (or L/T, perhaps better). Because numbers-of-metal-bars-traversed is a number, not a unit of length, so the thing you get out isn't a unit of speed. If you want your metal bar to be a length, then you have to make is a known multiple of your length standard, which is the metre. It would be physically inconsistent to have two different non-comparable length standards William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing physically inconsistent with having more than one length standard. The imperial and metric length scales were only unified in 1959, are you suggesting that all physics before then was inconsistent? To put it another way, there's no law of nature that forces you to measure length in metres. Physchim62 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said It would be physically inconsistent to have two different non-comparable length standards. The yard and metre scales were different but comparable, since they differed only by a scale factor. Of course there is no law that says you have to measure in metres. But you are trying to use two different *and non-comparable* length standards William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends what you mean by "non-comparable". All I'm doing is using a different unit system, which has been the norm throughout the whole history of physics. Even today, there are several unit systems in use, and the conversion factors are usually not precise defined numbers. If the conversion factors were precise defined numbers, there would be no reason for preferring one unit system over another for any given measurement. Physchim62 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the conversion factors were precise defined numbers, there would be no reason for preferring one unit system over another for any given measurement. - yes, indeed. So we're back to my comment of 20:56, 18 October 2009 William M. Connolley (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because numbers-of-metal-bars-traversed is a number, not a unit of length, so the thing you get out isn't a unit of speed. If you want your metal bar to be a length, then you have to make is a known multiple of your length standard No, you define a particular dimension of your metal bar as your length standard – that worked for about 600 years, and more than 150 years for the metre! And "number of metal bars" is no less a unit of length than "number of interference fringes", which is how metre-long lengths are actually measured. Physchim62 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * you define a particular dimension of your metal bar as your length standard - yes indeed, you can do that, but you cannot do that *at the same time* as defining your length standard as the metre via SoL. You are only allowed one at a time. Since 1983 we've used the SoL version, so you can't use bars any more William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We're arguing in circles here. You admit that there's no law that requires one to measure length in metres, but then you say that one is only allowed a single length standard at a time, and that (currently) that standard is defined in terms of the speed of light. Can't you see that your two statements are contradictory? That I am quite able to measure length in x units or astronomical units if that is what is convenient for the phenomenon that I'm measuring? I can convert to metres afterwards, should I wish, but I would have include an additional uncertainty for the conversion factor (which is empirical in both cases). Physchim62 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One is free to measure the separation of two points A & B in wavelengths or in transit times at two different times t1 and again at time t2. If, for example, the two wavelength measurements agree and the two times-of-transit disagree, one needs an explanation. For example, perhaps the speed of light c (the one in relativity) changed. Other explanations are possible. However, of course, regardless of the explanation finally adopted, regardless of whether c is determined to have changed, c0 (the one in SI Units) has not changed. Brews ohare (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no CGPM speed of light: there is an SI metre. That is one length standard you can use to measure physical phenomena, a length standard which is super for dealing with human-scale lengths on the surface of the Earth. If you want to deal with lengths that are very much smaller or very much larger than the human scale, or if you are not restricted to the surface of the Earth as your place of measurement, you might find it useful to use different length standards: astronomers and crystallographers have done that for as long as both scientific disciplines have existed. Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And your point? Maybe it is the same as my point: the speed of light (the one in relativity) c and the SI units c0 (the "speed of light" in SI units) are distinct from one another. One can be measured (c) and the other is 299 792 458 m/s (c0) "now a defined constant, not to be measured again." Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I view it differently, as you might imagine! For a start, c0 would be the the speed in relativity, and c would be the observed speed of light, that goes from a simple correlation with other standard forms. More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that they are different. If such evidence comes to light, it would require much more than a splitting of the two articles on Wikipedia but, for the time being, there is NONE! Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The notation |c0 is reserved for the SI Units number 299 792 458 m/s, as you well know. That is the same number described by Sullivan as "now a defined constant, not to be measured again." On the other hand, c, the speed in relativity, can be and is being measured all the time as part of the exploration of cosmological theories about the expansion of space and in the exploration of quantum gravity. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not unless you believe in the Global Conspiracy… Physchim62 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil
Please see my ANI comments here. In summary, I have restored one of the pages mentioned in your post per Brews' request with the admonition for him to be civil. I also urge you to be civil in these discussions. I am not taking sides in the ArbCom case at this time. Willking1979 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.


 * All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
 * is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
 * is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
 * Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
 * Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Speedy deletion nomination of Rømer's determination of the speed of light
A tag has been placed on Rømer's determination of the speed of light requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that the Russian site you quote has lifted the material from Wikipedia, rather than the other way round. Physchim62 (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article here contained the information as early as May 2004. There are significant differences throughout, though also massive overlaps.  It looks like the articles have been related somewhere in the far past, but since the information is here already (in a slightly different form which later transformed in the paragraph shown on narod.ru) that early, I suspect that the Wikipedia version is the original.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lone wolves, sheep herds, etc.
Hi. I just visited your user page. : ) Re "We like to think of ourselves as lone wolves, but really we've got all the fierce independence of a herd of sheep." Or maybe a herd of wolves? Here's another thought too. (Please note the link.)


 * Editors may seem fearsome,
 * But that depends on perception.

Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work
Nice work on the Cullum Geographical Medal article. I always like to see content expanded in such areas. I was the original author of the Hugh Hammond Bennett article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Pep Guardiola as Adam.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pep Guardiola as Adam.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Mosmof (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd save everybody's time and energy if you refrained from such obviously premature nominations at FfD. Physchim62 (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
<em style="border:1px solid gold;background-color:#008000"><font face = "Jokewood"> Happy Yuletides! <em style="background-color:white">

Seasons Greeting.-- '''yousaf465'  03:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
If you have a moment, could I get your input regarding acronyms in the list of cutaneous conditions? Thanks again for all your help! ---kilbad (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Wuhan–Guangzhou High-Speed Railway
-SusanLesch (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)