User talk:Shinkolobwe

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Vsmith 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for your efforts to improve articles. However, simply adding a long list of possible reference books isn't much help - people will use what they have access to. You are weclome to use specific reference works to cite various portions of the stratigraphy text that they support. Cheers, Vsmith 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
Hmmm, I think the one reservation I have is that it is a disambiguation page, and it appears to be a little more substantative. Either way, with the proposed edits I think it should be fine, as long as you toss in a citation showing the familial link. I do agree it's interesting.

Piuro (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Friedel scientists lineage
What a prompt reaction ! You have posted it in less than one minute after the creation of the "Friedel scientists lineage" page ! How do you do to be so fast ? I have been gathering information on the subject for more than two weeks and this lineage is simply amazing. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Shinkolobwe
 * Eh, I'm a new page patroller... The article is a good start, but the problem is mostly that this might be better handled a page, or by an article on the family... just like an article on a family of peers. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just
"move page" at the bottom of the screen. V. Joe (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanitisation
In march you moved Four-way cock to Four-way valve "to avoid the colloquial term cock". Cock, used in this context, is not a colloquialism but a perfectly good English word, stemming, according to the OED from the 15th century, and as such does not need to be avoided or sanitised out. I am sure you meant well, but I am afraid I think it looks like prurience. Globbet (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Sorry, It was not my meaning at all, as far as I can remember today. In fact I founded it more logical to use the term valve than cock or tap. Right now, I realise my big misunderstanding using the term "colloquial" in my comment: in fact, I only meant common, or familiar, like "tap" ("robinet" in the French), but nothing vulgar with bad connotation: I understand now your comment: it is very funny and was not my intention at all ;-). More seriously, from a technical viewpoint, there was already pages with one-way valve, two-way valves, three-way valves, and nothing on four-way valves: that was the reason of my move: to be consistent with the series of valves. Sorry, I am not a native speaker and in fact, I misused the term "colloquial" without thinking to the pejorative meaning. I would have done the same if the page was named "Four-way tap". I had no intention to sanitise anything: cock is also good but I hope the term valve can continue to be used for the sake of consistency in terminology. In the French, I would also have preferred "valve" to "robinet" which was my first own translation for cock.  :-)))))))  Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Sorry, It was not my meaning at all, as far as I can remember today. In fact I founded it more logical to use the term valve than cock or tap. Right now, I realise my big misunderstanding using the term "colloquial" in my comment: in fact, I only meant common, or familiar, like "tap" ("robinet" in the French), but nothing vulgar with bad connotation: I understand now your comment: it is very funny and was not my intention at all ;-). More seriously, from a technical viewpoint, there was already pages with one-way valve, two-way valves, three-way valves, and nothing on four-way valves: that was the reason of my move: to be consistent with the series of valves. Sorry, I am not a native speaker and in fact, I misused the term "colloquial" without thinking to the pejorative meaning. I would have done the same if the page was named "Four-way tap". I had no intention to sanitise anything: cock is also good but I hope the term valve can continue to be used for the sake of consistency in terminology. In the French, I would also have preferred "valve" to "robinet" which was my first own translation for cock.  :-)))))))  Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oxiides
Stub tag has been corrected, old category has been deleted, and new category has been created. Good catch on your part. DS (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Patterned ground
I have nominated patterned ground for renaming to patterned grounds. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Skomorokh, barbarian  19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AES & disambiguation
I saw that you'd added an entry on this disambiguation page. But there was nothing to give the reader more information (like a blue link to click on). You will definitely see lots of red links on disambiguation pages, but they've been placed there by accident or there is a (blue) link in the same entry that a user could follow for more information.

Another guideline for red links on disambiguation pages is that if there is nothing else that links to the (redlink) then that would disqualify it for inclusion on the disambiguation page. In other words, if you were to click on the red linked item, then (in the toolbox on the left side of the page) click on "What links here", and nothing appeared in the list besides the disambiguation page itself, you'd know that it wouldn't be a good idea to include it on the page.

I hope this makes sense, but there are more detailed instructions for disambiguation pages at MOS:DABRL. Take care. Dawnseeker2000  00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Desquamation‎
Maybe Desquamation‎ should be a disambiguation page? ---kilbad (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nijuuhibaku
Hi. Is "Nijuuhibaku" a word, or the name of a film?   —WWoods (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Template from Magnus toys: Photo request
Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cement and Carbon Dioxide
I noticed your contributions to the article on cement and your discussion on the talk page.. In this week's Der Spiegel, a process is described which reduces roughly by half both CO2 emissions and the energy required to make cement. Since my study of chemistry lies decades back, I doubt if I could describe this process adequately for the encyclopedia entry, but apparently researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology have discovered that even in the traditional process, a temporary intermediate hydrate is produced which, if introduced initially, is responsible for the radical reduction in temperature required (200° in an autoclave) and thus the energy outlay.

The Spiegel article is not available online even in German, but there is a commercial concern with an English website which would have enough information for the sentence or two required in the article. According to the Spiegel article, a manufacturing plant is in the works and a commercial product should hit the market in 2014.

I think this is a significant enough advance in cement manufacturing to warrant a mention in the cement article, but feel that somone with a great deal more expertise in the field than I should do the writing.

Thanks

Janko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Hello Janko,
 * Many thanks for this very interesting information I discover right now, having been in holidays far from the internet these two last weeks. I have quickly browsed to the celitement web site and what I have read there seems to make sense and to be based on solid fundations. The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) is a serious research center I know well in another field than cement production. I am not immediately a cement specialist, but I have a great scientific interest for this material as matrix for radioactive waste encapsulation.


 * If I correctly understand the information provided on the website of Celitement, indeed, everything is based on an intermediate hydrate: celite.


 * According to the information mentioned here, after hydration, celite forms CSH without producing portlandite (Ca(OH)2). It means, it is also a low pH cement. Usually, low pH concrete requires addition of pozzolanic materials to the mix of cement and aggregate to transform portlandite into CSH. So celitement could also be used to avoid an alkaline plume in clay and granite formations for deep disposal of radioactive waste where it is crucial to avoid the collapse of bentonite buffers insuring isolation of the waste packages from ground water.


 * In contrast, the absence of portlandite and the resulting "low pH" would no longer protect the carbon steel rebars from corrosion in surface installations designed to dispose low- and intermediate-level waste.


 * In the coming weeks, I will try to develop the question of this innovative cementitious materials with low-CO2 emission. Since several months, I was rather disappointed by commercially-driven green cement papers, often without strong scientific and technical basis. But this information seems me also to be a technical and scientific breaktrough which deserves more attention. Kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice their calling anything "celite". I just took "celitement" as one of numerous rather unfortunate English neologisms for which Germans are notorious: it's just "cement" with "lite" in the middle and sounds atrocious to a native speaker. Of course the answer to nuclear waste disposal is simply not to produce it in the first place. :) Janko (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Celite is also the name of the tricalcium aluminate (C3A) in the Cement chemist notation. I did not notice your explanation of celitement as an English neologism on the web site of celitement. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Their logo is what suggested ce- lite- ment to me, but now that you tell me this is the name of the intermediate hydrate, I have a much higher opinion of them! Janko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

Mining accident
Good to have some people with real technical knowledge hanging around, nice work. ValenShephard (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Shinkolobwe Mine
You might enjoy visiting ; here's one of my faves. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC), an old uranium prospector

Empty categories
Empty categories should not be placed in the category Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, but tagged with the speedy deletion tag. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for the information. I am sorry, I was not aware. Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad to help out and I know that's all you were doing. Not sure what the guy who created them all was thinking. Were they ever populated? Looks like some just go from one sub-category to another. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear materials
Hello, I make Category:Nuclear materials in jawp. And I found you categorized Gadolinium to it, so please tell me reason for me. IAEA refer to Nuclear materials as uranium, plutonium, and thorium. But enwp contain "Gadolinium", "Fission products" and other in "Nuclear materials".--Clarin (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. I simply have a wider acceptation of the notion of nuclear materials. As you mentionned, it certainly contains uranium, plutonium, and thorium as fissile materials. However, I think that this category is wider and encompasses more materials. Considering also nuclear fusion, we can certainly add tritium, helium-3 and lithium isotopes (Lithium-6 and Lithium-7) as fuel. But it is also possible to consider other materials needed to construct a fission or a fusion reactor.
 * For fission reactors we have:
 * neutron absorbers: cadmium, hafnium, or gadolinium, ...;
 * neutron moderators: deuterium (heavy water), beryllium, graphite (carbon);
 * neutron reflectors: beryllium;
 * fuel cladding materials: zircalloy, T-91, magnesium-aluminium alloy (magnox fuel), ...;
 * For fusion reactors we have:
 * neutron blanket: beryllium;
 * If the notion of nuclear applications is still enlarged, we can consider:
 * neutron sources: americium-beryllium, radium-beryllium, polonium-beryllium, or any other (n, alpha) couples;
 * radioactive waste: minor actinides and fission products.


 * That is why I added the Category:Nuclear materials to the page of gagolinium and fission products. However, I realise that for the strict purpose of safeguard activities (non-proliferation of nuclear weapons), it is possible to restrict the notion of nuclear materials to fuel. But nowadays, there is an increased trend to also control the trade of all strategic materials entering in the fabrication of nuclear reactors or atomic weapons. I hope to have answered to your question. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for answer to my question. I understood the outline of answer. I will consider whether to accept it in our community. Anyway thank you.--Clarin (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

peblle bed reactor
Are you crazy deleting new reactor entries with new name is vandalism ! Through here out of Wikipedia with VSmith !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 95.88.170.214 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Capture
You must delete molybdenum, ytterbium and Mo2B5 or keep reference to myself else legal lawsuit. This are new material uses sigested by myslelf with my rights on it like copyright same for others like THOR He-11BN-Pebble Bed design told VSmith+Syrthiss already ! Neutron capture was fully edited by myself longtime with no contribution really from VSmith. You are keeping also how to make gold in- side but deleting inside star not from myslef and at Fukushima side fully referenced table deleted at all 3 tables added and 4 pictures on side of section box also much more entries in text you still use only one mistake was death number 23 000 after the Spektrum article reference 8 added by myslelf in Wikipedia less 20 000 is maybe right.

I shortend before removing teatalk entry to casualties so no blocking reason was right !

If you don`t delete or unblock for delete else law suit else evrbody thinks free old knowledge or from yourself see international copyright law !

Much editing kept inside Neutron capture and Fukushima desaster but vandalism block !?!? Also corrections of nonsense before inside or later from VSmith not understanding anything as geologist if true just changes like < to less than also in pebble bed and deletions....

Also left inside after last edit neutron moderator from myslef with block myself: Hydrogen Deuterium Beryllium Carbon Oxygen Uranium Mass of kernels u 1 2 9 12 16 238 Energy decrement ξ 1 0,7261 0,2078 0,1589 0,1209 0,0084 Number of Crushes 18 25 86 114 150 2172 and deletion of right entry "to rare and expensive, and explosive radioactive" from 1947enkidu is vandalism like new moderators before like 11BN,(D/T)2, 7Li, He with hints how to use and why. Kay Uwe Böhm blocked by yourslef or your group

with VSmith running behind all the time making only problems see his his talk box also on rocky mountain loscust side running behind helping? Hosro with reason nonsense adding proofed wrong see talk box entries from the real locust experts from USA referenced inside german(englisch?) wikpedia and list of plants kiling insects also locust. 1 entry also already inside english wikipedia not german and second new theory that plants killed.

if new areva antares peblle bed design inside with: by antares like others before also right for THOR design by Kay Uwe Böhm not Robert Schulten see inside first ! Antares design also added by myself with two links also additional infos for THTR 300(www.thtr.de). If I delete whats from myslef it is my right !

if i delete inside star entry & rentry because right VSmith askes for citation just making problem - proofed. long list of absorbers and mixtures moved by myslef also 10/11B capture chart and much corrections additions !

Fukushima adding "down to 2% until" "14m instead 15m with later 13-15m before inside" "reached about 75% of Chernobyl in 1986 also from myself" """deleted peak values only""" and tables deleted not summary "1/10 about chernobyl additive and 2% loss radioactive inventory" from myself(Spektrum) and "exactly see tables later" deleted by Vsmith and readed still inside with tables away !!!! Section "There were no deaths..." from Teatak? moved down with short numbers already and before inside also 250mSv explained instead "ankles 2000 - 6000mSv same "2-6Sv and without confirmation added by myself with 1A reference like tables" desinfos before !

between 100 and 1000 (much less than the approximately 20,000 people killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami). clearly only quake and tsunami catastrophe level instead likely and first waht means also nuclear.

is "Radiation" section right instead "contamination" in english in german wrong ?

Unblock now ????? Deleting Mo,Yb...

With your shortenings you delete much right new informations like tsunmai wall 3.12m asked 56.7m build doors 10m high broken also Arvea Help with very good link to own information side just one sentence much information. boron flights, shutdown, suits, measuremnets > 1000 man water cleaning longer version see Fukushima side AREVA greates concern with EPR...

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ice stalactite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Pipe, Flow, Plume and Insulation


 * Aluminium(I) oxide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Prismatic and Dimer


 * Alcoholic liver disease (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to ADH


 * Greenhouse gas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Lifetime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CFC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Pozzolans -v- GGBFS
GGBFS is NOT a pozzolan. ASTM C441 / C441M is QUITE clear: "Standard Test Method for Effectiveness of Pozzolans or Ground Blast-Furnace Slag in Preventing Excessive Expansion of Concrete Due to the Alkali-Silica Reaction" [EMPHASIS ADDED] It is a hydraulic binder Jono2013 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sol-gel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Elastic, Shear and Elasticity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinguin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Shinkolobwe in color!
You may be interested in my latest addition to your namesake: File:Schoepite-Curite-Uraninite-214948.jpg, which has a *great* backstory. And, as you can see, the detail shot is amazingly colorful. Too hot to handle! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lithium aluminate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calcium hydroxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Passivation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kidney stone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staghorn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Henrik Svensmark copyright concern
Some of the material you included in the above article was copied from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/11/01/science.aaf2649.abstract, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you for the observation and the remark. I did not make a simple and direct "copy and paste" from the abstract of the paper in Science magazine: I have previously re-edited the text in Notepad before and I also made a citation in quote and in italic to clearly indicate the conclusion sentence of the abstract that was cited "as is". So, my effort of re-edition was probably insufficient, but this reference is certainly worth to be mentioned. I will thus rewrite it completely with my own words. Sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards. Shinkolobwe (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal of new text entirely reformulated:

Dunne et al. (2016) have presented the main outcomes of 10 years of results obtained at the CLOUD experiment performed at CERN. They have studied in detail the physico-chemical mechanisms and the kinetics of aerosols formation. The nucleation process of water droplets/ice micro-crystals reproduced in the CLOUD experiment and also directly observed in the Earth atmosphere do not only involve ions formation due to cosmic rays but also a range of complex chemical reactions with sulfuric acid, ammonia and organic compounds emitted in the air by human activities and by organisms living on land or in the oceans (plankton). Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and Earth magnetosphere.

Best regards Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alkali–silica reaction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosette ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alkali%E2%80%93silica_reaction check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alkali%E2%80%93silica_reaction?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on silica and silicic acid
Interesting and helpful discussion onto silica and silicic acid between User:Petergans, Lecturer in inorganic chemistry at Leeds University in 1964-2003 and User:Jorge Stolfi, professor of computer science at the State University of Campinas, Brazil.

I stumbled upon this discussion after one of my (small) edit was reversed by User:Petergans. Their respective talk pages and discussions are worth to be read.

Discussion onto silica and silicic acid recopied in the section hereafter pro memoriam in case no longer available. Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Source of this discussion: User_talk:Petergans

Copy of: Silicic acid deletion (not to be used for discussion here)
Quote of the original text:

"Hi, Last year I spent many hours cleaning up the jumble of articles on silicic acid and silicates. Read dozens of articles, etc. It seems that you were unhappy with that work and nominated the entire page for deletion. However, the overwhelming consensus of that discussion was "keep". Yet, someone apparently blanked that page anyway, with the result that it was speedily deleted -- and all my work, including the page's history, was lost. Then the page was re-created but as a link to orthosilicic acid.  Which however is just one of the silicic acids. Then you added a section on silicic acid to orthosilicic acid.  Which does not make sense either. I will try to ask the administrators to recover whatever is possible from the lost material.  I hope that, if you have objections to my (or anyone else's) hard work, you will take the time to discuss it, before simply deleting it. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, the final section should have been integrated with the introduction. I will look after this. For the rest, I'll put this page on my watch list.
 * There is a more general problem arising from the traditional use of the term "silicic acid" for silicon dioxide. My feeling is that the placing the section "Oceanic silicic acid" here is questionable; perhaps it belongs in the article silica.
 * Please note: I am not the person who performed the deletion. Petergans (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked to be mailed the original contents of silicic acid and will then think about what should be done with those pages. Meanwhile, who uses "silicic acid" as a synonym of SiO2? Mineralogists speak of high-silica rocks as "acidic", but I don't recall even them using "silicic acid". It seems as strange as referring to PbO2 as "plumbic acid". By the way, it seems that the double Si\dO bond is very unstable. Which would mean that SiO2 is actually an hypothetical molecule that cannot really exist, whether in the solid state or in solution!  Even the "metasilicic acid" HO\s(Si\dO)\sOH now seems unlikely; in water, an isolated molecule of it should immediately turn into orthosilicic and remain so. By the same reason, the oligomers that form when silicates are acidified cannot possibly have exposed Si\dO groups.  On the surface of such a cluster, there should be only \sOH groups attached to silicon atoms.  Inside the cluster, the silicon atoms must be connected to each other by \sO\s bridges, as in quartz and polymeric silicates. Makes sense?  I recall at least one recent article that had studied the structure and growth of those oligomers.  i don't recall whether I managed to use and reference it in the article. I hope I have saved the ref somewhere... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Use of the name "silicic acid" for SiO2 is still common for commercial products, as you will find if you Google the term. As to the non-existence of Si\dO, this is a very old story. The main factor is the ease of formation of polymeric silicate structures. By contrast, X\dO is well established in compounds of phosphorus (V), sulphur(VI) and chlorine(VII); the relative energy of the 3d orbital is lowered in those high oxidation states, so that it can take part in bonding. Petergans (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I googled "silicic acid" and the first commercial offer that came up was a Sigma-Aldrich catalog page. However, the formula they give is not SiO2 but rather the "metasilicic acid monomer" O\dSi(OH)2. Now, I don't know what is in that bottle,

I agree. Who knows what is in the bottle. I know for certain that the formula O\dSi(OH)2 is wrong. I have searched the web and Sigma-Aldrich appears to be the only source for this formula. (PG)
 * but it is definitely not SiO2 (because they would have said so if it was), nor O\dSi(OH)2 (because of that "impossible" Si\dO double bond). Most likely it is dried "silica gel" with the approximate elemental formula SiO3H2.  Which is probably a mix of mostly linear polymeric silicic acids with \sSi\sO\s backbone and OH side groups, either cyclic (starting with the dimer [SiO(OH)2]2, "disilicic acid") or linear capped with \sSi(OH)3 ends (starting with [(HO)3Si\s]2, "pirosilicic acid".  There may be more complicated branched and polyciclic structures too, as well as some Si(OH)4 "orthosilicic acid"; but those two must predominate to achieve the elemental formula. So I am still disputing the claim that "silicic acid" is commonly understood to mean SiO2. The existence of silicic acids in solutions of "silica" can be deduced from what are the possible bonds between Si, O (or O(-)), and H, and from the empirical fact that acidified sodium silicate solutions take hours or weeks to polymerize and form perfectly transparent hydrogels.  Those old papers that you deleted also give evidence based on boiling point, permeability, and such, of the existence of low-molecular-weight "silicic acids" in those solutions, especially after the counterions like Na(+) have been removed by ion-exchange resins. (It is disconcerting that you blithely erase material that is backed by those apparently careful experiments published in journals, just because they are "old", and then tell me to check commercial catalogs for evidence that "silicic acid" is just another name for silica...) Given that now ortho- and pyrosilicic acids have been obtained as stable solids, I think that the ball is in the other court: claims that those acids do not exist in aqueous solution should be backed by references to convincing experiments.  Would you not agree? In fact, if there is a substance that is "bogus", "purely unsubstantiated conjecture", it is SiO2!  With those two double Si\dO bonds, that molecule would be extremely unstable.  I doubt that it exist anywhere, except perhaps as a very rarefied vapor at very high temeratures, or some other exotic environment.  The smallest neutral molecule with that elemental formula that looks like it might exist is the cyclic hexamer [SiO2]6: six SiO4 tetrahedra, each sharing an edge (two oxygens) with each of its two neighbors. So maybe I should blank the silicon dioxide article and replace it by a redirect to unobtanium... 😀 I will try to rebuild the silicic acid article and subsidiary pages, hopefully with enough references to pacify the non-believers.  May I ask that you please do not delete my work again without discussion? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What I deleted were references to unreliable material from the literature prior to 2017. That is the year when Si(OH)4 was synthesized. Petergans (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Before that, the term "silicic acid" was used generically for silicon dioxide and related substances, such as "silica gel". Petergans (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC) It is still used today with many products of the cosmetics industry. Petergans (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are those old papers "unreliable material"? A substance that has not been isolated in pure solid form may still exist, and may be confirmed to exist in many ways other than isolation. Even if it is only conjectured to exist, but with reasonable arguments, it still deserves an article. Are there any recent articles claiming that those preparations described in old articles do not contain silicic acids, but something else? I don't recall seeeing any... I edited cobalt(III) chloride recently.  Some old articles claim to have synthesized it, but later articles explicitly say that whatever those guys got was not CoCl3. So of course I did not rely on those old claims. But other slightly "less old" articles identified it in vapor at ~800 C, and they seemed very carefully done, so of course I had to use those. That compound, like NO2, definitely exists -- even if it has not been isolated pure or as a bulk solid, and may never be. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I still dispute that claim. Those who believed in the existence of silicic acids would obviously not do that. Those who did not believe in them would call silica "silica": why would they call it "silicic acid"? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, so maybe that mis-naming is specific to the cosmetic industry? Do you mean those "exfoliaton" creams? I can imagine that calling the abrasive ingredient "silicic acid" could be more chic than calling it "silica"... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

My edits were based on the fact that situation has now changed.

I have revised the whole article in my sandbox and will post the revision after completing this message. Plase check my user page for some useful personal information. Petergans (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Not so. There is no need to speculate as to what species are present in solution. All that matters is that the dissolution and recrystallization do occur.
 * OK, I will wait. Meanwhile, note that the descriptions of the hydrothermal method for making synthetic quartz crystals assume that the silica in solution is orthosilicic acid
 * (because "colloidal silica" particles could not form crystals). Also, consider what silicon compounds could be present in those solutions that one gets by acidifying solutions of sodium silicate, or removing the Na by ion exchange.

That's speculation. What is known is that all attempts to make solution with higher concentration's of silicic acid have failed as a precipitate forms. Put quantitatively, at higher concentrations, the equilibrium
 * Si(OH)4 (solution) SiO2xH2O (solid)

favours the precipitate because of its low solubility.

Conjecture and speculation have no place in Wikipedia. Predictions based on known facts are OK, like Pauling's prediction of a pK value for Si(OH)4. Petergans (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)"
 * PS. I have known your qualifications for quite a while; but we are not disagreeing on chemical facts, are we? The issue is entirely which facts are appropriate for Wikipedia, and how to present them.  Since wikipedia is meant for non-specialists, the opinion of non-specialists should have some weight too, wouldn't you agree? 😊 All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Section with a discussion on the existence of the various forms of silicic acid recopied here above after deletion of one of my (small) edits. Evidence and facts are one thing sometimes very difficult to prove, conjectures and speculations are another thing. Chemical notation conventions dealing with never observed chemical species (such as, e.g., metasilicic acid ( or O\dSi(OH)2) formally similar to carbonic acid or orthocarbonic acid, or ) formally similar to orthosilicic acid can confuse or abuse the reader but criticizing these formalisms can also help the reader to better understand the challenges encountered to identify the real nature of chemical species. Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:EDTA Molecule.jpg


The file File:EDTA Molecule.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Author answer


 * I think it was one of the first images I created myself with Pymol (or equivalent) and uploaded on Wikipedia when I started to contribute in 2007. I am aware it is certainly not the best way to illustrate the structure of EDTA molecule, which can explain why this image is remained so long unused and orphan.


 * Except a sentimental attachment for my beginning works at Wikipedia in 2007, I have no objection to clean up around here and to delete this file. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Machine-generated source
Please don't add links to machine-generated articles, they don't qualify as reliable sources. It's like adding a link to a Google search. Nemo 11:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ITZ (disambiguation)


The article ITZ (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphan disambiguation page whose nav function is handled by hatnotes"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of ITZ (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ITZ (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ITZ (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have just seen your message. Thank you for informing me. I looked to the changes you made to the page, coming nearly back to the ancient version made just after the page creation. You have seen that I tried to find other meanings for ITZ (https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ITZ) that you have not accepted. In the meantime, I have seen your hat notes and the redirect you created which are also doing properly the job. I cannot add anything else more. So, I let now the debate open to you and other contributors, or patrollers, such as User:Atlantic306 for the final decision. The best is to conform to common sense and Wikipedia spirit and policy: it has to be useful and relevant while avoiding to create useless ballast for the database and the servers. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, see MOS:DABACRONYM. Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia topics that could be referred to by the ambiguous title as indicated by the topic articles' text. They do not index the Free Dictionary (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary) or any other websites. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waterfall (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horsetail Falls.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No original research: comparing jet fuel to electric propulsion
I removed your paragraph of analysis at Heather Willauer because you violated WP:No original research by sharing your own thoughts. In any case, the manufacture of jet fuel at sea to supply the aircraft is a completely different problem than various methods of ship's propulsion. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

. This discussion is now closed here. Sorry, but I have no more time to develop the discussion here and as you already read it, I think it is better to directly continue on the talk page of Heather Willauer. I have not modified the present discussion since 16 July 2021. It is thus unchanged and does not require a new reading: this is thus the final post. Due to unexpected circumstances outside Wikipedia and lack of time, I will not be active on Wikipedia for some times. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet. Thank you for your remark. I suggest to continue our discussion on the Talk page of Heather Willauer, so that other contributors could also benefit from it and understand the situation. My formulation was probably not the most adapted, but I do not think to have violated the "No original research" rule of WP. Let me provide you some explanations for the reason of this edit. When making rudimentary calculations on the back of an enveloppe, you immediately realize that the challenges that the project is facing are considerable. I do not say that they are insurmountable, but they are serious. The technique has the merit that it could already be deployed on-shore on remote naval bases and it is already a positive point that I clearly acknowledge.

I also first focused on the nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz and Gerald Ford classes. They are respectively equipped with two:
 * A4W reactor: 550 MWth, and 100 MW of electricity, plus shaft horsepower (2 × 104 MW);
 * A1B reactor: 700 MWth (25% more than provided by the A4W), and 125 MW of electricity, shaft horsepower (2 × 130 MW).

When looking to the number provided by Heather Willauer, the production of 100 000 gallons of jet fuel per day requires at least 200 MWe. It means, the electrolyser cells would consume more than all the electricity produces by the two A4W reactor of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and most of the electricity of a A1B reactor of a Gerald Ford class Carrier (250 MW on 260 MW). So, there is no energy left for feeding the ship electric systems and the electromagnetic aircraft launch system. The only way to produce such a quantity of jet fuel would be to recover electricity from another source and then probably to directly affect the naval propulsion which is certainly not wished. An alternative would be to synthesize a smaller quantity of jet fuel on the fraction of electricity still available on board. This would probably lower the expectations, but it would still be better than not to dispose of fuel in case of necessity on an aircraft. So, everything depends on the daily consumption of fuel by the airplanes.

About the jet fuel used for naval propulsion, the idea is not from me but from the media I just cited in the section you removed. This media inspired my edit and I substantiate the text from it even if it was not so clear for you. I should have formulated the text in a clearer manner without giving the perception to the reader of a personal point of view. I will try to reformulated that more correctly.

Indeed, the way the page was presented looked quite promotional and delivered to the reader the message that all problems were solved, or at least solvable in a relatively short term (i.e., during this decade 2020), what is likely not the case. Such a message based on the belief that technology can solve any problem is misleading for the audience and for the media. Some media were clearly abused in this direction. All the information necessary to make simple mass balance and energy budget calculations dealing with this problem is available on Wikipedia. Using this easily accessible information is not original research: it is simply thinking in a rational and critical way. Just what is expected from all Wikipedia contributors to avoid to diffuse unproven and misleading information and to avoid to abuse the credulous readers. One has to be open for new ideas, but at the same time also remaining critical. Both attitudes are not mutually excluding, in fact, they are complementary and both are absolutely needed.

Moreover, the page contained factual errors, as, e.g., confusing the cation-exchange membranes used in water electrolysis to produce hydrogen and the Fe-catalyst used in the Fischer-Tropsch process.

I also observed that you reverted other edits which were correct, as, e.g. the value of the pH of seawater. Seawater pH is in the range 7.8 – 8.2. It is lowered inside the anodic compartment and no pH < 6 is needed from the acidified seawater in the ocean.


 * Anode (oxidation): 2 →  + 4  + 4 e– (acidification of water)


 * Cathode (reduction): 2 (2 + 2 e– →  + 2 ) (alkalisation of water)


 * Sum of the two reactions: 6 →  + 2  + 4


 * Global net reaction: 2 →  + 2

It is the reaction occurring at the anode responsible for the oxidation of the oxide anion in water that releases the protons  needed to locally acidify seawater in the anodic compartment and wich allows to outgas  from seawater at pH < 6:  +  →  →  +

So, why did you reverted the edit made by 59.100.68.246 on 00:36, 29 March 2016 : Revision as of 01:00, 29 March 2016 and adding again the following erroneous information:
 * ", if they are sailing in mildly acidic seawater."

The present pH of seawater is not lower than 6: it is still between 7.8 and 8.1. If the seawater pH was < 6, most of the would already be spontaneously outgassed as it is done in the modified electrolysis cell.

Similarly, about the use of jet fuel: indeed one first thinks to airplanes as I also spontaneously first did but Szondy (2012) writing for GizMag mentioned ships propelled by a gas turbines fed by jet fuel. So, it is not an invention of my own and Szondy (2012) also asked the question of the source of energy necessary to make the synfuel. This is also suggested by a sentence you added yourself: "a plausible first step of implementation would be...", so what is the next step for the US Navy? Perhaps Navy ships powered by jet fuel? See the sentence hereafter:

Revision as of 06:36, 18 June 2014 (nuclear aircraft carriers)


 * Because the process requires a large input of electrical energy, a plausible first step of implementation would be for American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (the Nimitz-class and the Gerald R. Ford-class) to manufacture their own jet fuel.

One can hope decisive progress will be achieved soon by this technology, but it has to concretize in the reality, so better to be more prudent and to adopt a little bit more skeptical attitude than to make the unconsidered promotion of the project by confusing "obtaining fuel from seawater" with "fuel at sea" as too many media suggested in 2012. This weakens the project in place to support it and it triggered my edit simply based on common sense and simple math that anybody can make himself on the back of an enveloppe without being taxed of original research violation.

Understand me properly: I have nothing against the project, at the contrary: it is a fantastic project and I also wish it succeeds, but the future will tell us if it is the case or not. I lacked time to search more recent reliable sources of information on the topic, but old promotional buzz in the media is not sufficient to convince the reader of the feasibility of the project. So, if you are familiar with the topic, I suggest to add more recent and reliable information on the progress of this process to synthesize jet fuel from seawater. Recent references would be more relevant and appropriate than old references of 2010 no longer accessible (error 404: |url-status=dead; dead link). It would be appreciable and appreciated. Kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Dow Breweries into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia.    ev iolite   (talk)  13:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this tip I did not know. It is indeed a good practice that I will follow and apply when needed. In fact, I first copied the content of a section from Cobalt poisoning to Beer chemistry in order to create a new section on Beer chemistry as a primer paragraph (with good references) that I continued to modify afterwards in a notable way to explain the mechanism of cobalt cation in the beer foam stability. I did not visit the page Dow Breweries that I was even not aware of. So, there was also another former copy between Cobalt poisoning and Dow Breweries, but I ignore in what direction exactly. I will put a message on the talk pages dealing with cobalt poisoning and beer foam stabilizer. Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Voilà, it is done on the source and the destination pages:
 * Copied text attribution.
 * Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't aware of the previous copy, just found the Dow Breweries page when googling. Typically the way you'd do it is to add an edit summary when copying and then put the notice at the top of the page, but for now what you've done is fine. Thanks for the understanding! ev iolite   (talk)  16:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Rescue of Jessica McClure
Hi Shinkolobwe, I noticed you recently edited this article. Any clue as to why the pageviews have spiked in the last day or so? Previously it was consistently around 500-1,000 but now at 25,000. Just curious. S0091 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. The answer is sad: it is because of the very sad news of the death of Rayan Oram in Morocco yesterday. This 5 year-old Moroccan boy died Friday, or Saturday, after accidentally falling into a 30 m depth and narrow (Ø = 45 cm) water well on Tuesday, February 1st, 2022. The Moroccan rescue team worked very hard without interruption during 5 days and dug the ground with bulldozers and then finally by hand to a depth of 30 m. They recovered the body of Rayan on Saturday evening, yesterday. Until the last moment, one hoped the little boy was alive, but he succumbed some hours before the rescuers were able to reach him. In Europe, this tragic accident received much attention in the media. You can note that I added a link to the page dealing with this tragedy in the "See also section" of the Rescue of Jessica McClure. Fortunately, Jessica McClure fell to a lower depth (6.7 m) in a cased well and it was possible to save her life. Sorry for this sad news, Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sad indeed, Shinkolobwe. Poor little boy.  Oh and for the family and rescuers. Yeah...sad.  Thanks for response.  S0091 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Posidonia Shale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biota.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

HB Antwerp
Hi Shinkolobwe! I recently put up a draft for HB Antwerp and thought you might be interested given your work on the Sewelo article. If you have a moment to look at it, I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Margxx (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Margx.
 * Thank you for your message and your request.
 * I remember that I have edited the Sewelo diamond page nearly two years ago.
 * I am not a specialist in the field of diamonds, but two years ago, I stumbled upon an article in BBC News and in the Guardian about the Sewelô stone. I was amazed by its black colour and its size. I have worked over radiation-induced paramagnetic centers in minerals and the colour of the stone spiked my interest and triggered my edit.
 * I also have always been fascinated by the mysterious way nature and geology can produce diamonds in kimberlite chimney at great depth by explosive ascending phenomena where diamonds can be found close to fossils in the same piece of rock.
 * So, I am a simple Wikipedian. I looked at your user page where you disclosed your relationship with the company HB Antwerp for which you are also working. It is a good practice to have done that, and I congratulate you for that: honesty, transparency, and traceability are essential, especially on Wikipedia, as in the normal life. A suggestion would be to also disclose your affiliation in the Discussion page (Talk page) of the page when you upload it to Wikipedia. It will then be reviewed by some administrator and it is important that she/he realizes this point from the start.
 * After reading your draft, my feeling is that the tone of the page is still too promotional and too focused on economical and financial aspects. I suggest you to simplify the text and to remove all the elements resembling advertising. If the page is factual and sober, it would better correspond to the spirit of Wikipedia and better convey information useful for the reader.
 * I ignore your real objectives and intentions, or those of your company mandating you to write this page, but I would distinguish several possible audiences for your page:
 * 1. people in the field of your activity such as collaborators, suppliers, contractors, partners and customers, but they already know you and can better directly have a look on the web page of your company;
 * 3. business and commercial, financial people;
 * 4. students candidate for the HB Academy: so potential future collaborators and new colleagues;
 * 5. general users of Wikipedia intrigued by the company name or eager to learn something new on diamond cutting and polishing technologies. Reader with scientific and technical interest like "geeks".
 * Personally, I put myself in the last category (5) and I would expect to learn something general, but interesting, on the techniques developed by your company: machine learning applied to diamond cutting, cutting technologies with laser, laser scan to identify and locate flaws in the gemstones... and possibly with nice illustrations previously uploaded onto the Commons.
 * The most important is to respect the objectives and the spirit of Wikipedia: to openly share information and knowledge to construct an open, reliable, and worth of trust, encyclopedia: honest, objective, factual and traceable (verifiability!). If your company could release freely accessible photographs under the Creative common licence to illustrate your activities, works, skills, and to educate people, it would be very appreciated. If you provide the stuff to write upon, Wikipedian will continue to contribute to make a nice page.
 * In other words, if you behave in a disinterested and open way, the proposed page has more chance to develop by its own. If the page has commercial objectives and is promotional, its chances to grow are limited.
 * As in the theory of crystal growth, so important for natural and synthetic diamonds, there is two steps on Wikipedia in the life of a young page: nucleation and growth, or initiation and propagation. You are presently working in the very first step: nucleation, initiation. Small nuclei dissolve quickly and feed large nuclei who have more chance to further grow. So, to be successful, you need a nice nucleus with a good shape sufficiently developed to further grow. Purity is also essential in crystal growth. If your page is nice and modest, it will give Wikipedian the desire to continue to develop it. Also avoid supersaturation of the crystallization medium if you wish to grow a large diamond. The most important is to provide food for writing (i.e., open access material) and time to the page to develop.
 * Voilà for some ideas first coming into my mind.
 * Practical suggestions:
 * Avoid the too commercial and business wordings, such as:
 * The company controls its entire production chain
 * stated objectives,
 * sales,
 * share revenues from the sale of
 * breaking with the traditional model
 * based incubator supporting female-led innovation
 * announced a partnership
 * owner of Signum, a brand which sells customized
 * Do not try to impress the reader, but do your best to communicate relevant and appropriate information. Be simple. Be humble. Remove what is not necessary. Follow the quote attributed to Antoine de Saint Exupéry: You have achieved perfection in writing not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.
 * In the company infobox, it would be preferable to omit the "key persons": they are the same as the founders. It is redundant. The company is young (founded in 2020) and to my knowledge the founders are not famous people, or if it is the case, it is in a very small circle. Do not try to promote them: it will have just the opposite effect.
 * When looking at the references, there also seems to have a general bias: all the press articles are complimentary and praise the company. Most of the articles are also from newspapers. The feeling is that all these references are promotional. Does it exist other references from professional journals providing more neutral information on the company activities? Such as, e.g.: HB Antwerp Opens Diamond Training Academy". National Jeweler. July 16, 2021.
 * To adopt a more encyclopedic tone, also avoid slang and undefined abbreviations:
 * AI: —> artificial intelligence (AI)
 * NFT: —> Non-fungible token (NFT)
 * cryptoart... ???
 * STEM: —> Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
 * Always, define the abbreviations at their first occurrence.


 * Voilà for some technical details and suggestions to improve the draft of your page.
 * Welcome on Wikipedia. Please, also visit if you have not already done it: Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/1.
 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the community constantly strives for accuracy. Articles should be neutral and should contain only verifiable information and opinions that already exist in reliable sources. No original research also means that articles may not contain previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, opinions, or theories."
 * I wish you a successful writing and a nice page.
 * Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Manual of style
Thanks for your recent edits on sulfur concrete. I would just like to note that it's not necessary to write the chemical formulas after the name of each substance, unless there may be possible ambiguity. See for example WP:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry. E.g. for atmospheric oxygen it isn't required to write the formula, whereas in the case of iron oxide, obviously it can refer to different formulas, so in that case it may be relevant to write out the formula. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your comment and your reaction to my last edits on sulfur concrete. I agree with your remark and I have simplified the sentence you mentioned with atmospheric oxygen as example. The chemistry of sulfur, a redox-sensitive element with multiple valences and a trends to concatenation, can be complicate: that is why I started adding unusual chemical formulas (thiosulfate and tetrathionate) and probably also extended my zeal to more trivial substances. I aggree that it is better to remain as simple as possible: KISS principle; Keep It Simple Straithforward (or Stupid). Less is more. But it also depends on the audience and this factor was uncertain for me with this topic: a mixed audience of civil engineers in construction, material scientists, and chemists. Not everyone is familiar with the field of others. :-) Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moab Fault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indicator.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Concrete categories on Commons
Dear Shinkolobwe,

I see you are interested in technical subjects and you contributed to Concrete.

Would you maybe be inclined to contribute to the discussions concerning the arrangement of the categories on concrete on Wikimedia Commons which JopkeB lists on my talk page.

We are in need of a native speaker with some insight into the matter as currently me as a German, JopkeB from the Netherlands and a Portugese user are struggling with the correct terminology.

thank you very much for you attention,

KaiKemmann (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear KaiKemmann,
 * Thank you very much for your message and your invitation to participate to the arrangement of the categories on concrete on Wikimedia Commons. I would be pleased to support your initiative and effort but I am presently very busy assisting another contributor to achieve a page of quality on the French Wikipedia. My former professional experience lead me to study concrete and cements in the frame of radioactive waste disposal. I am fluent in the scientific English used in the concrete industry, but not a native speaker as my mother language is the French. I will see what I can do when I will have more available time. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Help with editing
Hi, I see that you added a list to the List of people who disappeared mysteriously at sea, good job! I was wondering if you could help me add some entries to lists, as well as create infoboxes as I am swamped with editing and would be very thankful for any help that I could get. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Thank you for your message and this kind invitation to add some entries to lists, as well as to create infoboxes. After adding one person disappeared at sea on this list, I cleaned the page by formatting several parts of text aggressively displayed in "ALL CAPS" in the references in "Sentence case", or "Title Case", more appropriate formats, as I am systematically doing when I encounter this type of poorly formatted text on Wikipedia pages. I am not particularly specialised in this type of list and I never created infoboxes, nor templates. If I can help you, I will do it gladly, but for the moment I am also overwhelmed by many tasks. Have a nice day. With kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hello, I'm Suntooooth. I noticed that you have been adding short descriptions to articles. However, the short descriptions you added are too long to be effective, such as at Incompatible element. The guideline is that short descriptions should ideally be under 40 characters long, and no longer than needed. For more information, see the short description guidelines. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Thank you for your comment and recommendations. I totally agree with these. However, sometimes one stumble upon difficult cases just as this of "Incompatible element" where a too short and too vague description such as "Type of chemical element" was meaningless and did not help the reader at all. Sometimes, it is even quasi a replicate of the page title. Everything is a question of balance between concision and usefulness. For "Incompatible element", I have seen your recent modification, "Element that is incompatible with its environment", but to be more specific for mineralogy, why not to try: "Element not easily hosted in a crystal lattice". Indeed, I totally agree that "less is more" and the exercice can be difficult and often requires thoughtful iterations and exchanges with other contributors. With kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion of "Element not easily hosted in a crystal lattice" is great and would work perfectly. The main issue with long short descriptions is that after 40 characters they become truncated in some common contexts (like the "related articles" section at the bottom of mobile view), so it's best to keep it below that if possible, and definitely under 80 characters (if it's above 100 characters it gets put into a maintenance category). I tried my best with the replacement of "Element that is incompatible with its environment" but I don't have any technical knowledge of the subject, so your suggestion is a lot better. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Thanks a lot for your kind answer and the technical tips about the "related articles" section at the bottom of mobile view when the page is seen on a smartphone. I should also control the short descriptions on my smartphone too, but most of my edits are done from a notebook. Kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited IOS 17, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SoC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green rust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)