User talk:Physchim62/Archive 2010

Message from PC
Happy New Year to all and sundry! Physchim62 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Pep_Guardiola_as_Adam.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Pep_Guardiola_as_Adam.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no point in sticking a notice on my talk page if you're just going to delete it anyway four hours later! Current practices for FU images are simply a waste of everybody's time. Physchim62 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN/C
Hi, I wonder if you'd be willing to reconsider your "qualified support" for the Iran riots- I'm working on bringing it up to scratch and, as far as I can see, the information is up to date. It still needs some formatting and copyediting, but I'm on that. All the best, HJMitchell    You rang?   23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Copper(I) chloride
Hi PC, and happy New Year! I'm trying to keep to my New Year resolution, and start doing some A-Class reviews. I took a look at copper(I) chloride, despite my obvious bias, and I think that although it's not bad, it could do with some attention. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and my comments, and give us your comments & improvements? Once a couple of us have made some improvements, I'll ask the wider project for comments. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chembox issue
Hi Physchim. There is some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox about potential changes to the Chembox Hazards section of chembox. Since you have contributed to the construction of this template, your input would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue
I think since I've seen it both ways, and I'm such a grammar Nazi, I was inclined to ask for that. Thanks for the explanation though, as it really helped. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Main Page viewing stats
Thanks for the replying over at the ITN candidates page. I'd love to see the stats for last year when you are done with them. Are you looking at just ITN, or the Main Page as a whole? I followed a DYK recently, and was shocked the other way at how few views it got. See here. I suppose only being there for 6 hours doesn't help. I would say that this is an incentive to get articles featured, but I seem to recall that the queue for that is very long now. Have you had any thoughts on how best to balance promoting exposure of content on the Main Page, versus driving traffic to other Wikipedia portals and pages where things can be "featured" instead? Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm only looking at ITN at the moment, as that is the Main Page process which I'm actually involved with. I would guess that each of the Main Page sections would need different types of statistics, and it is quite a lot of work, so I'll see how the ITN stats are received before trying anything else. For DYK in particular, I'd want someone to write a script to pull the stats out rather than going through them by hand.
 * The six-hour turnover at DYK is simply ridiculous. If you look at your chess player on ITN, that is a normal sort of ITN viewing curve: it peaks soon after posting, and drops off over a period of about 3–4 days. Just going on the height of the "peak", the median is about 16k hits on the data I've entered so far. That means that the median ITN story probably gets more hits in total (over the time it's on the Main Page) than the median TFA (although I'd need to run the TFA stats to be sure) But don't let me get too smug – we do have one or two ITN stories where the fact of being posted on the Main Page has absolutely no perceptible effect on viewing figures! (usually these are sporting events or elections in English-speaking countries where the story was posted 'late', so everyone who was interested in the story has already read it!) Physchim62 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Six hours is ridiculous? I presume you think it should be longer? At my screen resolution, DYK and OTD are "below the fold", as is the featured picture. I do know that the featured picture gets lots of hits, but that may also be due to it being popular for other reasons. Also, did you see the blog post about main page viewing stuff by ragesoss back in 2008? I don't have a link handy, but that was interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, far too often DYK should really be DYRWTK, "Did you really want to know..." As it stands, it only exists as brownie points for the editors, not as a service to the readers. If it were a service to the readers, as I try to keep ITN, then the good stories would stay up long enough for readers to be able to read them. Instead, it has become part of the infernal FA machine, which drains so much of our resources on articles that nobody (outside of the near-sacred "Process") actually reads. Unfortunately, deciding which articles people want to read cannot be done by simple box-checking, and so forms no part of the near-sacred "Process" (in future, "NSP", because it ain't worth my keystrokes) Physchim62 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just popping over to say pretty much what Carcharoth said: It's been great to look at some of the stats you've posted. It'll be very interesting to see your year's worth and see what has been ITN's most (and least) popular stories.   Nice work.  PS: If you are interested DYK already does a similar thing at DYKSTATS which makes quite interesting reading (it also has other stats such as how many DYKs have gone on to become FAs or GAs). - Dumelow (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit over ambitious in what I'm trying to do, but I should have some interim stats out Tuesday European time for the first five or six months of 2009. Thanks for the link to WP:DYKSTATS: my protocol is similar, but I'm also looking for variation in viewing figures over subject areas and geographical regions (as far as that can be determined, I've had to create a region for "space"!). The other thing I want to do before I make my database available is to document the potential biases that can be found in figures for an individual story, of which there are several. On the other hand, you can eliminate most of these by taking a median (not an arthmetic mean) over a sufficient number of stories.
 * If you want a rough and ready cut-off (the sort of cut-off I'm using in discussions at present), then an ITN story with a peak of 20k hits/day was a success and we should probably be running more like them. The converse is not true, that is that not all ITN stories at less than 20k/day were failures, but the statistical explanation will take me an hour or three to write! Viewing figures seem to vary over subject areas as well, and not as one might expect, but I need to take a closer look for biases on those before I shout too much. Physchim62 (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Icesave talkpage
Hi

It looks to me like your reply sorta messed up my input signature wise or seeing who wrote what isn't easy any more or perhaps not even possible. Could you fix it up somehow?

Thanks, --Here2Disrupt (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Beach in Pourville

 * No problems, I'd never written an article about a painting before, and I'm not sure I did that one well, but it was a welcome experience! I hope my short article (almost certain to be improved over the coming hours) gives a little bit of context to the story. Physchim62 (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish links
By any chance do you have Irish ties? I myself am Irish. Go Jedward! — Cargoking   talk  22:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ties? Well I've got plenty of Irish friends, and a couple of T-shirts with Guinness stains on them; I've spent a couple of Christmas seasons in County Kildare, but not much that I'd call an Irish tie! I'm British, albeit based just outside Barcelona (hence my regular comments about "the Spanish press" on ITN). Physchim62 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering because of some of your comments in various places. Hope you have many more days of ruined t-shirts from Kildare! — Cargoking   talk  08:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Article draft offline - proposed merger with new article
Thanks for creating Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery. I have a longer draft article that I've been working on offline. Would it be OK if I merged it in with what you've done so far? I could paste it as a draft in userspace if you want to see how the merger would work. I had intended to get this done in time for a possible ITN entry, but I've been working mainly from the PDF documents available from the CWGC website, and there was so much there I hadn't even got round to integrating the numerous news reports on this yet. I'm going to do a bit more work to bring it to a more finished state, and then post a draft in my userspace. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replied on my talk page. Will try and get the longer article up tonight. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I still need to add the references from my offline notes (shouldn't take too long). The draft is here. I left off the infobox and categories, as you've done those already and I'll tweak those if needed once I've merged the text. As the burials will be taking place throughout February, I hope one more day's delay for a possible ITN entry will be OK. The news coverage has surprised me, with over 193 hits on Google News so far. Apparently it made the TV news services as well. Will have to try and find a clip to watch. Would you be able to help with adding some of the stuff on the news articles? I'd like to get that in there before signing off on the article. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Final update: I updated your nomination here. Will have to see how it goes. Is there a way to make sure it doesn't get lost and people read down to see it? Carcharoth (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Galánta (Galanta) District
Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try to be polite
Edit summaries like this, especially when accompanying very minor changes, rub me and probably many other editors the wrong way. Thanks. Afasmit (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Pizza addition
I read that article today, and was hoping someone would take the time to add it to the Pizza article, which is sorely in need of hard information.. Nice work! Piano non troppo (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's actually a great deal of info in the European Commission document I've linked to, including on the history of pizza (one area where the article is particularly weak). I'll try to do some more work on it later, especially as I think we should have a separate article for pizza napoletana, but I've got some RL stuff to do first! Physchim62 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Le Trou Aid Post Cemetery
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Le Trou Aid Post Cemetery, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://ww1cemeteries.com/ww1frenchcemeteries/letrouaidpost.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Physchim62. I'm afraid parts of the Le Trou Aid Post Cemetery article closely paraphrase http://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/31100 and need to be rewritten. The following passage, for example, is almost verbatim copied from the source: "The cemetery was first used between October 1914 and July 1915. At the Armistice, it contained 123 burials, but it was then enlarged by the addition of 230 bodies from the battlefields and smaller cemeteries to the east." While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. Regards,  The left orium  17:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration
Hello, Physchim62. This is to inform you that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8

ITN for Halle train collision

 * Ah, I'm glad you've got one of those. I delivered the credits for that but having watched the article develop since going up, I was going to give you one. Good work- keep it up! HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Halle train collision
Thanks for fixing that test edit from some newbie. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruxelles-Midi
Please see the talk page. I've added comments. They are positive towards you because you gave a reason that nobody else gave. However, there is also mention that consensus is against you. Note, however, that I am reasonable and believe that a good reason triumphs over mob rule.

What do you think, in general? If there are more people who say delete (using a non-Bruxelles-Midi example) or undue weight but there is better explanation for keep or not undue weight. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are a former administrator? Did you give it up? Were people mean to you? I am looking for wise administrators to ask an occasional question. I already know one but knowing 2 or 3 would be nicer. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing other peoples comments
If you feel the need to do things like this, then I would ask you to at least have the common deceny to inform the original poster. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, given the lack of "common decency" of the poster on repeated occasions, and the utter inutility of the comments. Physchim62 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So be it. I won't be asking you next time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No need really, I won't ask you either before I request that you're banned from all pages related to ITN, given your recent behaviour. Either calm down or shut up. Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dutch involvement in Afghanistan
see the page on ISAF. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:QCA logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:QCA logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.


 * This logo was no longer needed since the QCA has been separated into the new QCDA and Ofqual Tafkam (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE! Physchim62 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Honey (2010 film)

 * My Gawd, I was just about to go to WP:ERRORS to say that it's in the wrong place, but it isn't. Thanks for posting it! Physchim62 (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on expanding this article, too!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just.... wow

 * Hmm, well, thanks! It was fun as well! If you think that I have provided an "excellent summary", then maybe it's because I'm not actually an organic chemist (and much less a natural products chemist)! I was surprised myself at the impact that this reaction had: I have tutored several excellent Mexican PhD chemists, and I shall now consider them Marker's adopted children! Physchim62 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Marker degradation
Very nice, my compliments! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Main page
Thanks for the compliment!! Denisarona (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:⇄
Template:⇄ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:⇄
A tag has been placed on Template:⇄ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion about Brews
I will not ask you to stop asking for site bans, because it seems that this is how Wikipedia works nowadays. But understand that I believe this project has failed because of requests such as this. Thank you for supporting everyone else, but please don't bother supporting me--- as long as Brews cannot contribute, I will not contribute (that's not because I his contributions are so great--- it's an issue of freedom of expression).Likebox (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT an experiment in freedom of expression, it is a project to create a high-quality encyclopedia. Even if it were an exercise in freedom of expression, Brews behavious in itself was limiting the freedom of expression of other users. As for "this is how Wikipedia works nowadays", we have always banned disruptive editors, especially disruptive pseudoscientists, there's nothing new about it, quite the reverse. Physchim62 (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To put things in perspective, right now there is an AN/I discussion about an editor, see here for his c.v. Some people are suggesting he find some not so controversial articles to edit. I suggested he write up his ideas about how Wikipedia should be edited in an essay and disengage from the problem areas. It should be clear that GoRight is not like Brews, yet we still try to spend quite some effort to get GoRight contribute productively. Patience is only recently starting to run out. Also no talk at all about "advocates of GoRight" who religiously defend him (e.g. ATren). Count Iblis (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2010 '(UTC)


 * Physchim, you should only ban editors pushing crackput stuff. I can't understand how you could so blatently mischaracterize Brews' minor point about speed of light as pseudoscience. It's not rocket science and it doesn't contradict relativity. It's a minor point about what a defined constant means, that's all.


 * As far as freedom of expression goes, the tolerance required here is high. Without allowing all sides to speak, it is impossible to achieve NPOV. You must remember that Wikipedia is Usenet 2.0, it is not Britannica.org. Usenet was a home for free expression, and Wikipedia just seeks to harnass that expression into a permanent archive of knowledge. If the encyclopedia becomes more exclusionary, you will have no contributors. I'm certainly not going to continue contributing.


 * One of the issues that is becoming apparent is that the adminstrative group here will interpret policy in a way that will amke it impossible to write technical content. I have given up on my own original vision of mathematical text on Wikipedia--- it isn't going to happen. The reason is that the content is not talked about by knowledgable editors until consensus is reached, it is argued over by political people who wish to accumulate evidence for an ArbCom case to ban their opponents. That's an intolerable situation, and the only way to fix it is to stop having so much arbitration. That means, unban everyone, and get back to arguing without bans, the way it used to be.Likebox (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62: You accuse me of promulgating pseudoscience. You claim here I support the crazy notion that all science went down the tubes with the 1983-adoption of a time-of-flight definition for the metre. Also see here, where you use the term FUBAR to describe my position. Although I'd have thought myself to be the best authority upon what I think, and although, for example, I have made a very clear statement of my views during the SoL debacle, you refuse to accept my denial of all such thoughts, even though (naturally) there aren't any diffs and there is no other evidence whatsoever to support these notions about my present or past views.

It is perfectly clear that my statements concerning the SoL border on the trivial, and definitely don't classify as pseudoscience. It is untrue that the 1983 BIPM change of definition of the metre disturbs me in any way. My concern was merely that the implications of this change were confusingly presented in the introduction to the SoL article.

I believe that what has happened here is very simple: during the flurry of back and forth dementia among participants on the SoL Talk page, you have assembled a collage of things said by many participants and mistakenly attached it to myself. I respectfully request that you re-examine this matter and correct your misimpression of me. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion
I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement request
For some reason I am watching WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and I noticed your request and realised that I am being mentioned there quite a bit. I am glad that you have understood my involvement in this case in the way that I meant it, but somehow I felt the need to leave a comment there anyway. I am of course aware that my understanding can only be incomplete because I am not a physicist and have missed much of what happened. Hans Adler 20:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ermm, discussions on WP:AE are supposed to be open to all editors, no? ;) So thanks for your comments and, especially,thanks for pointing out my hyperbole. I am not trying to suggest that Brews believes in pyramid numerology, nor that he pretends to gain his "vital energy" from clutching crystals! Further comment on that matter would be inappropriate here, but I shall try to be more careful in the future. Physchim62 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to be sure that you see my comment before something happens, in case you want to respond in any way. I have no idea how fast that particular page operates, and I may not have internet access for the next few days. Hans Adler 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the time scale is either, but my request will obviously be archived as refused. That's why I wanted to get a defense in as well! Ho hum, you can't win 'em all... Physchim62 (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to note that Brews ohare has responded to my comment, but not to the last point. I can still think of two interpretations, though. Hans Adler 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy
Thanks for your feedback on the Wikiphysics page. I think you definitely have the right idea about this article, and wanted to invite you to either contribute directly to editing, or at least to adding your viewpoint to the article's talk. There is at least one regular editor there promulgating the conspiracy-theory slant with right-and-left reverts. FellGleaming (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it again tomorrow: I don't want to go charging in without concrete suggestions. Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry and comment. --Siddhant (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself notified on an ANI discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Icesave_referendum_edit_warring_by_disruptive_user

There.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's always scary to be put on notice by an SPA who's been around for like 3 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No comment, as the ANI thread is now closed! Physchim62 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN
I expanded the scope of the hook with the 3 April 2010 Baghdad shootings. Any other recent attacks? Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

page moving & biases
i´ve noticed you seem to be the only person to persist with the current name for the icesave issue. i´ve also noticed that you display a fair amount of bias in the talk page eg:

look at the figure released by the Central Bank of Iceland itself: the following are taken from its Economic Indicators, comparing January 2003 and September 2008

* Bank lending to the domestic sector: 698.3bn ISK → 4827.4bn ISK (+1226.5%) * Krónur money supply (M3): 393.6bn → 1230.3bn ISK (+312.6%) * Labour force (est.): 154,600 → 148,600 (−3.9%) * Wage index: 228.7 → 350.4 (+153.2%) * Consumer price index: 224.7 → 315.5 (+140.4%)

And what about the declared value of goods and services produced in Iceland? +26.8% from end-2002 to end-2007 in krónur terms...

what is your personal stake in the title of this article? did you lose money to icesave? the current title of the article clearly does not reflect the article´s subject. taking the article to the admin´s board with your side of the story was a masterstroke to get your way but this is not in the spirit of a community programme. i´m sorry the world doesn´t see everything your way. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. I am quite happy to change the title to something better, and I'm not trying to defend the current title other than against editors who wish to change it without discussion. Titles with "Icesave" in them do not have consensus on the talk page, so the sensible option would be to look for something else: I look forward to your constructive comments. Physchim62 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * i seem to be not mistaken as you are guarding the title of the article with sufficient fervour. my constructive feedback appears on the talk page and your neutral tone doesn´t cover what you´ve written there. please look to the tally i´ve constructed regarding the title. where is the lack of consensus? my guess is not much will happen between now and the 15th as the topic is trivial enough that it´s burned most ppl´s attention span anyway. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Magnets seems to be attracting the wrong kind of attention from admins. He had best back off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * oooh look, a fwiend from nowhere. this is the internet, white knighting is pretty stupid. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you're oblivious to the discussion surrounding all this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

apology
well, in an epic blunder on my part i have, indeed, missed the 2 move proposals at the bottom of the page so while i´m in oposition to your view point i do owe you a pretty big apology... --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted! But we still have a probelm concerning the name of this article, and I'd be grateful if you could contribute constructively to the discussion instead of just going automatically for the "Icesave" options. Physchim62 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * :) yeah, i´m currently going through the titling policy article and writing a detailed list of why i´m supporting the icesave name.

--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

iceland referendum naming
cheers, i wasn´t aware of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections page but it seems that most proposals follow it anyway. for my own points i stuck to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles page to try to not be too confusing (as i said i did find discrepancies - eg the australian referendum norm) but i don´t think the format is really in dispute any more - it seems to be icesave or not icesave, that is (apparently) the question.... --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

i think you´re probably right that it´s time to close the poll. it also does show 1 clear favourite and one "least offensive" favourite (least ppl against) so how does the followup happen? should it be bought up on an admin board?--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove other people's comments from article talk pages
You have now twice removed a section from Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash on your own opinion that it is irrelevant. As per WP:TALK, please don't remove other people's comments from article talk pages -- it is clearly discussing things related to the subject, and no editor WP:OWNS articles, and the direction that articles can or will take. I am not arguing for the inclusion of information into the article, but given other people's comments on conspiracy theories, well here we have a conspiracy theory (as whacked out as it is) from a notable person in a reliable source. Welcome to Russian topics on WP!! :D --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'll stick with WP:RS and WP:FORUM, thank-you very much. Physchim62 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
Since the accident a troll with an IP from Telefonica Spain has been posting nonsense at 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and also at International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Some IPs used by this individual have been blocked (i.e., , ecc.) and he has been told over a dozen times to beat it. Because of this person the main article 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash had to be semi-protected and as he continues his disruptive and childish behavior (i.e. ,, ecc.) I propose that every further post by an IP from Spain that sprouts conspiracy theories and similar be removed on sight and the IP reported to the Anti-Vandalism Center. --noclador (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I am in Spain and have my usual connexion via Telefonica! I will continue to remove conspiracy-theory posts from the talk page, at least for a while: unfortunately, it doesn't seem that we can class them as vandalism, we have to go under the wider net of "disruptive editing". Hopefully things will calm down fairly soon, but if you see any more blatent examples the report them to WP:AN/I. Physchim62 (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping with this article; there are a large number of vandals on it. I would caution you to avoid using the term "KGB" for the Wikipedia Administrators on that article as it may lead to some misunderstandings (see "DoomedSoldier"s comment). N419BH (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it amazing that this catastrophe is attracting so many problems. Physchim62 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is disruptive editing of talk pages grounds for reporting to the Admins? I looked at the website he promotes on his userpage and from that I am guessing he's an officer in the Polish armed forces and doesn't like it that pilot error is the most likely cause. N419BH (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a quick glance at his contributions and he is obviously active on topics related to Poland and is not a flyby vandal. Given the amount of disruption on the page, I feel that there are lines that need to be drawn: a nomination of the page for deletion would be disruption, in the circumstances. Nor are edits like these helpful to the development of the article. On the other hand, I haven't removed his talk page comments (unlike those of several other editors) because, alone, they do not constitute disruption for the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Catalan
Hi Physchim, do you speak Catalan by any chance? If so, would you mind doing me a small favour with a bit of help on a small translation from English into Catalan? Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 02:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly check to see if this is correct -- commons:Template:Kremlin.ru/ca. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect – it reads like it's been translated! – but it's understandable. I'll have a look at the templates on Catalan Wikipedia to see if I can polish it up a bit. Physchim62 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you that would be great. The editor who did it upon my request did admit he is not totally fluent - still learning - so input from a fluent Catalan speaker would be great. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm not a native speaker, but I do know a few "translators' tricks" for Catalan! Physchim62 (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I polished up the French translation as well, while I was there! The Spanish seems OK apart from a strange usage of one verb (poseer), which I shall assume is correct! Physchim62 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Juan Antonio Samaranch

 * Hey, while I'm here, I could use someone with scientific knowledge. I'd like to get Sir James Black up to GA status- he's just been assessed as B-class and I think the potential is certainly there, but I know very little about his field of work, so I'd appreciate it if you could run your eye over it when you get chance. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sister Elise Kemp
Thanks for your input. I already created a temp page for Sister Elise Kemp and any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated. I will add the link you provided to the page. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you get the chance could you review the temp page for Elise Kemp and the temp page for Frank Hyett for copyright compliance. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing it now! Physchim62 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can happily confirm that the temp page for Frank Hyett is free from all possible copyright violations. Physchim62 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Allan variance
Could you have a new look on the Allan variance article for the rating from the Wiki Project for Measurements. I would value the input from such a rating so that I can improve the article further. Cfmd (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Timms
I will refernece now you should have gave me time. Watch the news. I was in the process of aquiring a reference you should not reverted so soon!!--94.7.22.107 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you should have waited until you had the reference before posting. This has now appeared, but Twitter and blog posts are not enough; especially when we are talking about a serious attack on a public figure. Physchim62 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had of checked you would have seen I referenced with BBC news. Anyway I'm not 'talking about' a serious attack I'm just inserting a brief outline of the incident. How can you "talk about" it? It's not a gossip magazine its an oline encyclopedia.--94.7.22.107 (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Yes that is correct.--Fermanagheditor (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You could have placed raised this on the talk page or you could have added a citation needed template like this. If you need any help on wikipedia please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. --Fermanagheditor (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Polonides
Are polonides really stable? There seems to be a trend of decreasing stability with the chalcogenides. Oxides are very stable(oxidation potential -1.23), sulfides are sort of stable (they decompose with strong heat) (oxidation potential -0.14), selenides (?), tellurides are very strong reducing agents (oxidation potential +1.14), and polonides should be almost unable to form. The same thing with the halides. Fluorine→fluoride (+2.87), chlorine→chloride (+1.36), bromine-bromide (+1.06), iodine-iodide (+0.54), astatine-astatide (even lower).

I saw your edit in WP:Elements recent changes. Thank you. I have not reverted your edit. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, polonides are stable, and the polonides of very electropositive metals show classic ionic structures (eg, Na2Po, antifluorite structure; CaPo, halite (NaCl) structure) indicating the presence of true Po2− anions. Polonides of less electropositive metals are best described as intermetallic compounds, but the same goes for the corresponding tellurides. The oxidation potential for Po2− in alkaline solution is estimated at about +1.0, according to Greenwood and Earnshaw. Physchim62 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the polonide be oxidized to polonium easily in air, and wouldn't it reduce water to H2 and OH-? That's what I mean by their stability. Tellurides, such as sodium telluride, present challenges because of their instability. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case, we're using different definitions of "stability"! Both sodium selenide and sodium telluride will oxidize in air, but that doesn't mean that they are not "stable". If you mix sodium and tellurium in the correct proportions and in the absence of oxygen, you will get sodium telluride because Na2Te is the more stable than 2Na+Te. As for the reaction of polonides with water, it appears to give H2Po (at least for dilute acids), although there is very little hard data: a gaseous polonium compound is about the last thing you want flying around! Physchim62 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Polonides
Impressive! All in one edit! My compliments! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really... I prepared it on the test wiki first! It took me sixteen edits there to have a version that I was happy posting to WP! Physchim62 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
--Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010, to which you were are a party, has been rejected. Full details are at the case page (which will be deleted after a reasonable time). If you have any queries, please contact a committee mediator or the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.) <

Talk:Gaza flotilla clash
Apologies: I reverted you just now, when you removed "propaganda".

Stuff like that is OK on an article talk page, since it's not the article. Indeed, it should remain on the talk page so that we can discuss its applicability to the article.

Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit war about it, but don't forget to read WP:FORUM: comments on talk pages are mean to improve the article, not to be a general discussion about the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but in this case another editor had replied. It's useful to keep in such a situation - largely for the WP:NOTAFORUM advertisement it gives to other editors ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Polonide
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid
I respect your edit here, and certainly won't revert it. However, I would counsel collapsing these WP:NOTAFORUM discussions: it removes a platform for WP:POV.

Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My reason was that the NOTAFORUM hat seemed to have been applied in a very selective sense. "Weapons" in the sense of what was used in self-defense by the passengers on the Mavi Marmara and "weapons" in the sense of article that are restricted for transport on the high seas are two completely different concepts. To pretend otherwise is to fall into the trap of eternal dualism. Physchim62 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. It seemed to me that the original IP post, and certainly the subsequent replies by ShalomOlam and yourself, seemed to address the article (or its talkpage), but that the subsequent IP post added little but opinion (and encouraged a POV response). TFOWRidle vapourings 19:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Journalist Ben-Yishai
Hi Physchim, You seem to have removed all mention of the journalist Ben-Yishai who was traveling with Israeli forces and witnessed the incident, and you claim he was not an eyewitness. Do you have any RS that support these changes?

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I second Zuchinni's question, and add that Ben-Yishai, as the only present journalist to provide a coherent account of the events, has been discussed extensively on the talk page. His account was described by the BBC as the best available one. Also, FYI: . Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla lead
You recently tagged the boarding of five of the ships passed without serious incident as disputed. What about that statement do you dispute? It sounds quite reasonable. There was no violence. &#151;Ra&#64257; 01:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it's being addressed now on the talk page. There was some scuffling. &#151;Ra&#64257; 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no deaths or injuries, granted, but the many testimonies of Henning Mankell (on the Sofia, I believe, and just for example) suggest that "without serious incident" is pushing it too far. Physchim62 (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say...
It's the second time now I've seen someone say "bibipologism" and I'm ashamed to say - I have no idea what it means! Couldn't find it at Wiktionary... so, what does it mean?! TFOWRidle vapourings 14:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it has an exact definition! It is a portmanteau of the nickname of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, widely known as "Bibi", and "apologism", defined in the OED as "a defence or excuse, a speech or written answer made in justification of anyone". So "Bibipologism" would be an uncritical defence of the position taken by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Physchim62 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it! Thanks for the definition. TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit tags seem misleading
Physchim,

In your recent edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367587067&oldid=367586691

You removed a sentence with the claim that the ITIC report did not say that. However it was the very first sentence of the referenced article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/israel-points-finger-at-turkish-pm/story-e6frg6so-1225878143687

If you think this information should not be included you should explain why clearly in your edit and on the discussion page.

I recommend that you undo your edit and then redo it with a clearer explanation.

Or explain on the talk page the logic behind your claim that the ITIC did not make the statements as per the source.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But we've already had a lengthy discussion on the talk page! The ITIC report is here, it simply doesn't contain the allegation which is being made. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverts in Gaza flotilla raid
Hello. I noticed that you are doing multiple reverts (restoring image, restoring link to SS Exodus, etc.) on Gaza flotilla raid article. Please note that doing these reverts, some of which are in contradiction with extensive earlier discussions and agreements on the talk page, is a clear violation of the WP:1RR restriction on the article. Many users, including myself, were recently blocked for 24 hours because of similar behaviour. --386-DX (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm in breach of 1RR, nor do I intend to be. The image was removed because it lacked in-line references; I located the relevant references and added them. There is substantial support on the talk page for including the SS Exodus in the "See also" section, including new discussion just this morning. There are indeed some editors who ignore talk page discussion to try to push a particular political line (I don't consider you as one of them), which is why the article needs contunual and careful editing. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the Exodus; there were long discussions about it; and although I supported its inclusion, the general consensus seemed to be that including it would be editorial and POV. As for the reverts; based on what I saw from the blocks the other day, the administrators do not care if there is agreement on the talk page for the reverts. If you do more than one in 24 hours, you are considered to be violating the rule - end of story. If you continue, I am sure that somebody will report or notice you and you will get blocked. --386-DX (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and re-insertions in Gaza flotilla article 4RR in 24 hours
Hi Physchim,

Please be more careful about editing content that has been discussed in the talk pages and subject to earlier edit wars.

Here are 4 reverts or re-insertions you did in a 24-hour period on a article with 1RR protection:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=367422427

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=367587067

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=367595252

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=367597991

You may also want to tone it down in the talk section as per WP:Forum and avoid posts like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367609343&oldid=367609193

It is understandable that this article is bringing out a lot of frustration for people, but try to remember that wikipedia is trying to be a neutral encyclopedia that does not support any side. If we all start calling the other side names it gets difficult for people to positively contribute.

Good Luck,

Zuchinni one (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The first two are simply not reverts or reinsertions. The third and fourth are discussed in the preceeding section. 1RR is not meant to freeze editing of a page, merely to stop edit wars breaking out: in what sense have I been edit warring on the article? Physchim62 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Physchim, I think you should take a step back and look at your recent contributions both to the article and the talk page. Ask yourself if you are really doing your best to adhere to the NPOV policy of wikipedia.  It might be a good idea to take a break from this one for a while.  Zuchinni one (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stepping aside would imply that I believed other editors were respecting NPOV: several of them are blatently not. There is an insidious bias of double standards being applied to accounts from the two sides. I don't wish to accuse all editors who take a pro-Israeli stance, as several of them are obviously trying to do their best to create a balanced account with the material that we have at our disposal, but several others are simply wishing to act as mouthpieces for the Israeli government, taking offense that anyone could dare challenge Israel's position. You know that as well as I do, but what are you proposing to do about it? Physchim62 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Over the past couple of weeks I've tried talking to those editors on both sides who I felt were inserting obvious bias. Mostly though I'm trying to assume good faith and just talk to people.  I know how hard it can be to edit something you feel strongly about, but I truly believe that people can do more good when they've had some time to take a step back and re-assess things.  I do hope you stay around for the long-term, but taking a day off might help out.  Zuchinni one (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ron Ben Yishay
Hey nice to meet you, personally on your talk page. You really need to see Waltz with Bashir, I insist ;) Ron Ben Yishay is far from fictional as you suggest, in fact he is pretty solid real. In addition he has record of uncovering Israeli government wrongdoing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not criticising his record as a journalist, just that he got it wrong on this one! The BBC piece you've just cited has obviously taken his account at face value, which was fair enough when it was written (June 2) but less wise now: just look at the number of updates they've had to put into it! (and they've still got the wrong position for the raid in there, although later BBC pieces are more accurate). And I'll look out for Waltz with Bashir, the reviews look good, although I'm not sure my partner would appreciate it... Physchim62 (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, still Ron Ben Yishay account seems valuable since he was "on stage" and has intimate knowledge of Israeli military. Later BBC source you have provided does not dispute that Ron Ben Yishay was an eyewitness. I still struggle to see why you say that his account is fictional or not accurate or kind of expired. Anyway my partner's wish is always my command, so you're excused from Waltz with Bashir, it's kind of dark and heavy and makes you think about death instead of life/love duality. Just wanted to make sure you are aware of Ron Ben Yishay's role in uncovering Sabra and Shatila. I'll try to get some sleep now, stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

French words
I Thank you for speaking in French :-) "éclopés" seams to be "walking wounded". ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel B52 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comme fumeur, "éclopé", pour moi, c'est bien pire que "walking wounded"! "Walking wounded", c'est plutôt "chuis foutu, mais c'est pas grave, allons-y" (comme j'ai dû dire qq fois dans le quartier de la gare de Toulouse). Physchim62 (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. T. Canens (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Iron(III) acetate
I have been evaporating a solution of iron(III) acetate, as you saw in User talk:Chemicalinterest. I just saw that it has evaporated and added water to it. It formed a brownish suspension (first picture), which upon addition of HCl to it turned to a red solution. So it did form basic iron(III) acetate when dried. The equilibrium could be:


 * 3 FeOH(AcO)2 + 3 H+ ←→ 2 Fe(AcO)3 + 3 H2O + Fe3+

I don't know how to make the equilibrium symbol so I used that. Thank you. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can get an equilibrium symbol by typing eqm! What did your solid look like? Was it well defined crystals or was is more of an amorphous powder? Physchim62 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Brown powder, not crystalline. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your rudeness
You recently re-added "non-voting" to the gaza flotilla raid article. I have no problem with this because you added a reference source which made the non-voting aspect clear. However your comment about knee-jerk removal is rude, and along with your other rude comments in the forum, it assumes bad faith of other editors. It also makes a false implication that I did not read the referenced source before making the change, which is NOT true, and this is obvious since you added a source to the end of the sentence in your edit.

Also the comments page is not the place to have that kind of discussion. If you want to say something to me you should leave a comment on my talk page. Edit_summary

If you choose to continue this inappropriate and confrontational behavior I will bring your conduct to the attention of the admins keeping track of this page.

You have strong views on this topic and your opinions are appreciated. But if you want to be part of the community that is editing this page then you should conduct yourself appropriately.

Zuchinni one (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "non-voting" comment was not in the least controversial, and was already supported by a source in the article. By removing it, you show that you do not care for making the lead an impartial summary of an impartial article, you only care about getting in the right spin as early as possible. Any editor who cared about NPOV would have checked the article, something which you obviously did not do. That is why I characterized your edit as "knee-jerk": I think the term is quite mild.
 * As for your threats, they're water off a duck's back. Already you have shown yourself on this very talk page as someone who fires off loose threats without any consideration for the facts behind them, let alone any judgment as to whether edits are improving an article or whether the matters are already being discussed. You listed four "reverts", two of which are patently not reverts and the other two of which were being discussed in the section immediately above the one you started. In short, you think that your own opinion is the only one that matters: you do not seem to care about NPOV, or the encyclopedia, and you have been lazy in the edits I mention here. If you can't take criticism, do not edit controverisal articles; if you choose to edit controversial articles, do so attentively and constructively, and in line with the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to be as rude as you like to me in the talk pages. But as you well know, many other editors have been offended by recent comments you've made on the discussion page.


 * Keep the edit comments & discussion page civil and we won't have a problem. Continue to create an unwelcoming and rude environment and you will be reported.  Having strong opinions is OK, making wikipedia a forum for your opinions about the topics or other editors is not.  Zuchinni one (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think several editors who have a personal pro-IDF opinion simply cannot understand how much they themselves are offending other editors by their comments and their actions. Any editor who is honestly offended by me calling the IDF soldiers "murderous dogs" – a comment I justified before even making it – should not really be editing the article. Similar comments have been made about the activists without any such outrage. Similarly, it seems fine to insinuate any old rumour about the IHH, and yet, as I have pointed out on the article talk page, we would not even dream of discussing the (alleged) war crimes of the IDF as a background for the flotilla raid. NPOV, by definition, cuts both ways. Physchim62 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I will not accept any statement that dehumanizes people. Whether they be Israeli, Palestinian, Turkish, pink, brown, purple or green.  Zuchinni one (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hi Physchim62! I have filed this arbitration enforcement request in regards to your comments. Please feel free to present your side of the issue or retract the comments. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Physchim62, regarding the AE report, I would be grateful if you could indicate that making personal comments isn't conducive to improving the article, and for this reason, you agree not to make similar comments in future. Would something along those lines be possible? PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that these are "personal" comments, as they are obvious directed at the actions of a small group of people (whose identities are not public) in a specific situation. Any sanction against "personal comments" should also be addressed to those editors who slur the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, labelling them as terrorists and the like, especially as these are WP:BLP cases (for those who survived the attack, at least). I'm perfectly willing to refrain from comparing members of the IDF to Man's best friends, homicidal or not, but I found it strange that I was the first editor on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid to be formally warned (and now facing WP:AE action), given the gutter slurs which are commonplace there. Ah, sorry, I forgot, I slurred the Israelis, and that's not allowed... I look forward to similar attention being paid to other editors and their comments, although I'm not optimistic that such a course of action will be carried out. Physchim62 (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant 'personal comments' in the sense that the comparison to man's best friend was your own view. PhilKnight (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case, I can't see how you can eliminate personal viewpoints from an article talk page, and I certainly reject any suggestion that I should be limited over and above the other editors who contribute there. We have policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR, which exist to protect our articles; and we have talk pages, one of the functions of which is to discuss if a statement is neutral and/or supported by a source and if a source is reliable. Neutrality being in the eye of the beholder, it is sometimes necessary to show (on the talk page) that other viewpoints are held. Of course, we also have WP:FORUM as a key policy, and I arguably breached that, but my experience is that this sort of edit is a better response than WP:DRAMA. Physchim62 (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion should be helpful
Hi, Physchim62, could you tell me your opinion about my edits please ? I don't think that I'm doing something wrong but I have some pressure on my talk page. It could be nice if you should have a look on my talk page and if you should give me your opinion. Thanks Samuel B52 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, tout de suite! Physchim62 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cevdet Kılıçlar
It's noted here, which incidently I found through ei's rather good round-up of the coverage of the attack. Misarxist (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Var floods
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban (WP:ARBPIA)
This is to inform you that, as per this AE request, you are banned from the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict for one month. The topic ban covers all pages, parts of pages and discussions related to that conflict, broadly understood. This sanction can be appealed as described at WP:ARBPIA.  Sandstein  10:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you will take similar action against other editors at that page. I'm not holding my breath, mind! Physchim62 (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I believe that you have been treated unfairly. Indeed, after two admins asked for an (in my view unwarranted) one-week topic ban, the decision to impose a one month ban seems extremely harsh. It is also clear that other editors who make comments at least as serious as yours get off with a minor slap on the wrist.

Despite this, I would regret it if you decide as a consequence to leave Wikipedia permanently. Please, after you have had a chance to calm down, reconsider your decision. It would also be worth appealing against this extraordinary ban, on the basis that it is being applied inconsistently. RolandR (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 South China floods
--Kindest regards, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Database
Hello, thanks for the comment on the talkpage of the french chemistry project. You mentioned that one goal of the english project was the building of a database ("...c'est de proposer ces informations sous un forme qui pourra être lu automagiquement et que nous pourrons garantir la fiabilité scientifique.") I'm just wondering if you have already developed something for that purpose. If not I just want to bring that system to your attention. This system extracts information from dump and create database available here. The french project already defined his chembox to fit that data extraction. Some work has to be done in order to extract the reference and the conditions of the measurement. For that we mainly need some programers able to work on the toolserver. If you have some people working on that problem I will be happy if you can say me where I can get in touch with those people in order to be able to keep our system up-to-date with the development of that database. Thank you Biglama (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Snipre
 * Our approach has been slightly different – see User:CheMoBot, which is a bot operated by . I completely agree that "some work has to be done in order to extract the reference and the conditions of the measurement" ! But we also found another problem, which was how to "attach" data to a give compound – what should be the primary key of the database – and it is this question that we have focussed on the most. At present, at least for the most important compounds, we know which CAS registry number should appear in the infobox and we are informed if anyone tries to change it. CAS numbers are not perfect primary keys, but they are better than Wikipedia article titles because one article might discuss several compounds (copper sulfate, for example, with anhydrous and hydrated forms).
 * CheMoBot also watches other fields in the infobox, such as melting and boiling points, but we don't publish the results because the underlying data is less reliable. See Talk:Cyclohexanone for an example where it is very difficult to give a "good" value for the melting point. Personally, I think the next step for "validated data" would be official safety information (EU rules will change from 1 December) and preferred IUPAC names (which will be introduced next year), but we haven't had any serious discussions about these things as a project yet.
 * So, anyway, Beetstra is the person to talk to about the technical aspects. But I don't think there's any problem with the "chimiebox" and anything we're doing now or considering for the future: on the contrary, it is good to try out different ideas. Physchim62 (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have some talpages where these problems are discussed ? Biglama (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot was discussed on IRC, so I'd have to find the logs. WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation discusses some of the problems, though. Physchim62 (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

3-phenylazoacetylacetone
I found almost 800 Ghits. It seems like an imoportant chemical. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Colombian presidential election, 2010
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Castelldefels accident
Do you have a source for the train type? It is not supported by the BBC ref, which states "High Speed Train", inferring the type that I used to illustrate the article (not saying that I was correct though). Mjroots (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the El País article says it was an Alaris service, so that's my basic WP:RS. I can also tell you from local knowledge (easy enough to check) that the High-Speed Line (AVE, the trains you pictured) doesn't run through Castelldefels. So "high-speed train" is a bit misleading: it was an "express" train on an "intercity" service, but running on normal lines. Now I just have to find an RS for the fact that the line on which it was running is the busiest in Spain! Physchim62 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see a picture of the actual train involved in the accident here. Physchim62 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten that paragraph with El País as the ref for the train type. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's more information coming out at the moment: apparently the train was travelling at 135 kph (the speed limit for that section is 150 kph), and there could have been as many as 800 people on the platform at the time of the accident... I stick the info and refs in the article once I come up with a good wording and check the wikilinks. Physchim62 (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking really good now. :-) Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You beat me to the rollback! Do you think that there is a racist element in the vandalism, which was also added to another article (reverted by myself). I've steamed in with a lvl 3 warning and will block the IP if this continues. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible that there's a racist element, although the stuff I reverted looked more like "bored little kid" vandalism – that's why I didn't bother with a warning, I'm lazy like that unless the vandalism actually offends me. Physchim62 (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

German Copyright
A few years ago you updated Template:PD-Germany to read the life of the photographer +70 years, what happened to the law regarding 50 years after a photograph was published? How would this apply to a photograph published in 1942?--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The 50-year rule is still there, but it only applies to photographs that don't qualify for copyright, say speed-camera photos. Any photograph that is "original in the sense that [it is] the author's own intellectual creation" is protected under copyright for life+70 years. It is very unlikely that an encyclopedia would be using photographs that weren't "the author's own intellectual creation", it's a relatively low threshold of originality.
 * I will assume that your photograph published in 1942 is original enough to qualify for copyright: it will still be under German and U.S. copyright, and its U.S. copyright will expire at the end of 2037. Physchim62 (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would it be under US Copyright?--Crossmr (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because U.S. copyright would have been restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act on January 1, 1996 (assuming the photo wasn't first published in the U.S.). Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Castelldefels accident/Saint John festival
Why do you keep changing "The accident occured on St. John's Eve, a major celebration in Spain, as in other European countries" to "The accident occured on St. John's Eve, a major celebration in Spain, as in other mediterranean countries"? It makes it sound like San Juan/Sant Joan only happens in the med which if you check the midsummer article definitely isn't the case. I just celebrated midsummer last week in Latvia, exactly the same celebrations as in Valencia! It's an unnecessary, inaccurate and misleading change. Valenciano (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This short phrase is definitely getting to be more trouble than it's worth! All I'm trying to say is that Sant Joan is a particularly big celebration in Catalonia (and in Valencia, but the accident didn't happen in Valencia), but that Catalonia and Valencia aren't the only places it's celebrated. Most English speakers will never have heard of Sant Joan as a midsummer festival, but the context is important because it explains why there were 700+ people on the platform of a small station at 23:30 on that particular day. When you say "as in other European countries", you imply that Sant Joan is celebrated across Europe, which it certainly isn't. I'm aware that it's celebrated around the Baltic as well as around the Mediterranean (and apparently in some parts of Ireland as well, hence the existence of an English name, "St John's Eve"), but Castelldefels is not on the Baltic... If all the effort put into changing that short phrase had been spent on improving our article on St John's Eve, we might have somewhere to direct our readers for a full description and explanation. Physchim62 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Catalan autonomy protest
Nice work - Dumelow (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Catalan autonomy protest and the World Cup
Hi! I noticed that you deleted my addition that the protest was held the day before the World Cup final, as being 'irrelevant.' I actually beg to disagree with you, and here's why. You say that the protest was scheduled before the scenario of the final was known. If the compromise was approved on June 28, that's only two weeks before the final, and the article indicates the final report was released the day before the protest. I don't know if you've ever participated in organizing a demonstration, but I think it is absolutely amazing and significant that the day before arguably the biggest national team sporting event in Spain in recent memory that there was a demonstration of one million people. I happen to be American, a much less politicized country for sure and a much larger one, but I cannot imagine anyone scheduling a demonstration, say, the weekend of our Super Bowl, which is the closest thing to the World Cup final we have, and not nearly as big. I can think of one time when our Senator agreed to a meeting we had been calling for on our Independence Day, thinking that weekend everyone would be too busy to attend, and we managed to get 500 people to turn out. And a million people would be significant in a U.S. protest as well. I think the fact that the parties were able to get a million people out in Barcelona, while the next day a multiethnic team representing all of Spain is playing for the World Cup (and congratulations by the way), is historically significant and speaks to the depth of the issue and the seriousness of the Catalan people. It may not seem like much now, but ten or twenty years from now, people will look back on this weekend and see one million people marching for their civil rights on one day, and the entire country glued to the World Cup final on the very next day, and realize, if nothing else, what a superb job of organizing this must have required. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thanks. Bruxism (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The near-coincidence with the World Cup final was exactly that: a coincidence. The timing of the demonstration was basically determined by the Constitutional Court. The summary judgment was announced in the early evening of Monday June 28; I think the demonstration was called the very same evening, although I'll check the sources and add them to the article. It wasn't announced for the following weekend because it was obvious that there wouldn't be time to organize it, so it went on the weekend afterwards, ie last Saturday. At the time the demonstration was called, nobody could have known that Spain would be in the World Cup final! To give a comparison, there were 75,000 people celebrating the World Cup victory on the streets of Barcelona on Sunday night, a respectable turnout for a city of a million people.
 * Equally, nobody knew that the full sentence would be issued on the evening before the demonstration – it was expected to be released on the Monday (ie, yesterday). You can't really fault the Constitutional Court for releasing the sentence as soon as it was ready (there were five minority opinions, which is why it took ten days to prepare the document), but the tone of the majority opinion was certainly infuriating for many people in Catalonia and contributed to the participation in the demo the next day.
 * For me, rather than the coincidence with the World Cup, the notable point about the turnout for the demo was that this was held in July. I'm sure it's true for the States as well but, here in Mediterranean Europe, people really don't want to be bothered with politics in July and August! There are better things to do than spend a couple of hours standing on a street corner waving a flag! And stand on a street corner is all that people could do, as there were too many other people doing the same thing to be able to march! But a million or so decided to wave flags anyway, despite the fact that they were less than a mile from the beach...
 * Just a note on the organization (in case you haven't gathered, I was at the demo myself). The organizers didn't expect a million people to turn up, more fool them. The planned route of the march can only physically accomodate 600,000 people, even at 4 people per square metre (a pretty high density for a protest march in movement). That's why they had to call off the demo "early", as a matter of public safety. Still, there were only 34 cases of heat exhaustion (despite temperatures in the 90s Fahrenheit) and no reported arrests, so you can't really say anything "went wrong". Physchim62 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Catalan autonomy protest
Hi Physchim62! I'm a bit surprised by your claim of vandalism in that article. Where did you find it? Is there an error? Please let me know. Regards. CCCClaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Yes, I was reverting these three edits, which might be more WP:SOAPBOX than WP:V but which certainly do not belong in an NPOV article about the demonstration:
 * Police "politically controlled" by the demonstrators? don't make me laugh! Regardless, the figure of more than one million protesters is cited in numerous WP:RS.
 * More silliness with figures for the number of demonstrators, and an edit to the lead which removes the explanation of the motives for the protest
 * Òmnium Cultural is not a "political organization", unless you consider (as the IP appears to) that any promotion of the Catalan language and culture is inherently "political.
 * I'm sorry you have seen fit to revert my edit, and I ask you to self-revert as soon as is possible. Physchim62 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Polanski Case
Wait a second. Are you saying that you got called by a television station asking about why we were still arguing Polanski's case on the ITN talk page? That seems... random? Cwill151 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was back when Polanski was first arrested. I did a lot of editing on the page at the time, and Swiss TV wanted an interview on how we dealt with contraversial topics on WP. Physchim62 (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's still pretty cool... That's awesome you could be part of that. Cwill151 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lowest estimate
Stop removing the perfectly referenced lowest estimate for the number of demonstrators in the 2010 Catalan autonomy protest. The estimate has appeared in all major Spanish newspapers and TV channels. You only want to show the highest estimates (the ones provided by the parties supporting the demonstration, as always happens), which is against NPOV. Also, the reason you provide for removing it is that it is 'ridiculous' and, for some reason, you don't like it to be there. Apparently, you don't know that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Check this out. I've already reverted you twice: if you keep on with this behaviour, I'll report you to an admin. --Belchman (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The lowest estimate is ridiculously low: 56,000 people is fewer than one person per square metre on the Passeig de Gràcia alone, when we have multiple sources saying that there were many more. I'm not accusing Lynce of political bias – they also produced a ridiculously low figure for an anti-abortion march in Madrid – I am merely saying that their system of counting obviously doesn't work. The vast majority of reliable sources have quoted figures of around a million for the turnout, and the article also quotes the estimate of El País which is about half that number (even though their estimate has a huge error in the capacity of the Gran Via barcelonés). If you continue to include a discredited source without discussion then I shall assume that I am reverting vandalism and not good faith edits. Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that their estimate is accurate - actually, I think it is far from that - I am merely pointing out what that company said. Lynce's number has been widely covered and, as such, it should be included. Obviously, you can add why Lynce's estimate is wrong if you want. --Belchman (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good compromise :) Given that there is obviously some controversy about the numbers, there's a place for a section that discusses it. Personally, I was there, and I would say nearer 800,000 than a million, but that would be WP:OR ;) Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Charles Mackerras
--Courcelles (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Great article
Re: this comment -- thanks for the tip. Raul654 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Kang Kek Iew
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I've sent 2010 Israeli Air Force Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion crash to AfD after the PROD was contested. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Never seen that before !
I notice in this change you edited the previous contributor's signature. I suspect it's inadvertent, in which case you might want to undo it (though it's not something that stands out among all the discussion).-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was, of course, inadvertant! My laptop has a habit of sending the cursor to the top of the editing window whenever I'm not paying enough attention ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Toros BCN 2010.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Toros BCN 2010.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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)