User talk:Stone/Archive3

Transurane
Hallo Stone,t

falls Du auch in der Deutschen Wikipedia unterwegs bist, so wären Deine Beiträge auch dort willkommen. Von mir wurden de:Americium, de:Curium, de:Berkelium und de:Californium deutlich erweitert. Inzwischen ist Berkelium "lesenswert", Curium "exzellent", Americium wird in Kürze "lesenswert", Californium steht im Review und dies möchte ich bis "exzellent" durchbringen. Schau mal in de:WP:RC vorbei. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

English-speaker
Harald, I noticed a comment on Sandy Georgia's page about Niobium. I could help with the English, as I know some German and have also revised papers written by Italians. Petergans (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to help, but I'm going away for a winter break tomorrow, so it won't be before 29 Dec. Petergans (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Hochberg
Hi stone, I was curious if you could tell me what you think of my justification for the Michael Hochberg article (see the discussion). I am a first time wikipedian and I am not sure what is appropriate and what is not

thanks

Vuerqex
Do you speak German? Vuerqex (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Ja warum? --Stone (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dysprosium
Thanks for updating the wikiproject box with the new article status. I missed that while updating the templates and listing the article as a good article. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also updated the Achievements list on the Elements Project page.--Stone (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Basile Adjou Moumouni
Do you have access to the JSTOR article and, if so, could you e-mail it to me? ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to have a look tomorrow!--Stone (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Army Equipment
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Army Equipment, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Army Equipment is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Army Equipment, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

vanadium
I have finished my revision of vanadium. I have omitted things that I could not understand. To re-introduce that stuff, it might be helpful if you could supply me with a well-written German original and your attempt at translation, via e-mail at peter dot gans at hyperquad dot co dot uk. Apart from that, I don't want to work any more on this article. It distresses me that so many errors were introduced in the compounds section after I had worked on it originally. This is WP at its worst when every Tom, Dick or Harry with a smattering of knowledge thinks that he/she can improve an article, when in fact he just degrades it. Petergans (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GAN? My attitude is strongly coloured by experience with acid dissociation constant which, despite huge effort by many people, was not promoted at FAC wp:Featured_article_candidates/Acid_dissociation_constant/archive2. This has left me with the feeling that it is not worth the effort to go for special status of any kind, mainly because the process may involve being subjected to "ignorant" comments by non-specialists, which wastes a lot of everybody's time.
 * The article as it stands is certainly of good quality, but I would not want to be involved in the GAN process. For me, it is enough that I can help improve the quality of articles whose chemistry I know something about. Petergans (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vergleicht es bitte auch mit dem bereits exzellenten Artikel de:Vanadium. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Werde ich machen, habe auch schon einiges von da übernommen!--Stone (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Scandium
Please see my new questions on the GA review and the talk page. Overall it's great work, and worthy of the plus sign in a green circle. Congratulations on thorough research and clear presentation. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've begun reviewing this article but there was an edit conflict with you. Please don't edit again today as I have made a bit of a mess which needs to be cleaned up first. Petergans (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Completed Petergans (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello I added information about Scandium, and you said it needed to be from a reliable source. Well I am a Scandium trader, and most of the world's Scandium is in strategic stockpiles. If you delete my contribution, people will not be able to know these things! Have you ever handled large quantities of metallic Scandium? I bet the kids and students who read your article don't. (Its about $5000.kg). I think Scandium could be used in medical prosthetics, for example. It is surely a good idea to let people know more about the metal, given how little information is available. rgds Inhwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to say thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Stone (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitarbeit bei de:WP:RC ?
Hallo, hast Du Lust, Dich auch auf der deutschen WP zu beteiligen? de:Benutzer:Stone ist noch frei, so dass man daraus einen SUL-Account machen kann. JWBE benutze ich gleichfalls als SUL-Account. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:World Zinc Production 2006.svg
Could you make the key much, much larger for this image? There seems to be room for a key that is as tall as the image if the map is moved to the right. As is, it can't be read when thumbnailed. If you don't have time, I'll probably get around to it. Thanks. :) --mav (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mav, I will most likely do it on the weekend, the real life put me on a preliminary design review and a second meeting far from home for the whole week.--Stone (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I updated the file.--18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it is much easier to read now. :) --mav (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I stumped on this page] but I cannot really understand it. Since it seems like a good overview, can you quickly check it to see weather we missed anything major? Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vanadium
It looks better. I will continue the conversation at Talk:Vanadium/GA1 to centralize the discussion. Gary King ( talk ) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dapsone
Hi there

I only know a little German, so I was wondering if you could help me with some translation. The first synthesis of dapsone is described in.

From pages 2269-2270, this is what I understand of the synthesis:

4,4'-Dinitrodiphenyl sulfide was oxidized to the sulfone in a solution of potassium dichromate, glacial acetic acid, and sulfuric acid. (next page) The sulfone was reduced with tin and concentrated hydrochloric acid, and the free base was obtained by treatment with an alkali.

Did I get anything wrong? If not, I"ll put it into the Dapsone article? Thanks for your help! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi I will read it on Monday, I have no access from at home. Sorry. --Stone (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The recrystallisation from acetic acid, but this is only the cleaning step. You got what is written there!--Stone (talk)

That's great, thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

V/Pt
Re: V - my pleasure. I'm currently working on Pt and related articles. When you have a bit of time, perhaps you can take a look too. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

re:zinc
You mean stuff we should not include? Anyways, which stuff are you referring to? Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We should include some of the stuff, because it looks interesting. I will try to find refernces for it and and than I will add it.--Stone (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

chromium
Gutentag Stone

First of all, I cannot even find the version of the article as edited by myself. Did you do something with so that it cannot be retrieved anymore?
 * You changed the sentence from:
 * Trivalent chromium (Cr(III) or Cr3+) is required in trace amounts for sugar metabolism in humans (Glucose Tolerance Factor) and its deficiency may cause a disease called chromium deficiency. In contrast, hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI) or Cr6+) is very toxic and mutagenic when inhaled.
 * to
 * Trivalent chromium (Cr(III) or Cr3+) is required in trace amounts for sugar and lipid metabolism in humans and its deficiency may cause a disease called chromium deficiency. In contrast, hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI) or Cr6+) is very toxic and mutagenic when inhaled.
 * and this was the only edit you did. I am not an admin so changing the file history is not within my posibilities.

Secondly, I would like to see my statement about GTF returned. So redo that!
 * Your edit errased the Glucose Tolerance Factor GTF from the article. If you want to change it. do it if it is well referenced I have no problem with it.

Thirdly, why did you replace my ref. from a scientific journal with something from a patent office. Redo my ref. as well!
 * There was no ref for GTF the patent ref goes to another line In medicine, as a dietary supplement or slimming aid, usually as chromium(III) chloride, chromium(III) picolinate, chromium(III) polynicotinate or as an amino acid chelate, such as chromium(III) D-phenylalanine.[14]

Mit Hochachtung Haddendaddendoedenda (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that you did not save your edit? I found no hint of any other edit, so if you want and it is possible for you you can redo your edits? --Stone (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your recognition of my work on Chromium. I was wondering why you deleted that sentence (last edit). Is there anyway to salvage the sentence?68.148.145.190 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought The history of chromium dates back thousands of years is not necessary because the next sentence starts with 3rd century BC basically making clear that this is 2.3 thousand years ago.--Stone (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I agree with you completely, but I meant this edit: .68.148.145.190 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Symposium: FAC and the sciences

 * Your input is requested, either at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium or at the subpage where the effort will begin... Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 10:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tantalum
I have passed the GA for Tantalum. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

ExoMars
Thank you for the message. I admit that I do not know the current status of the mission, and assumed that the ESA web site was more accurate and updated than BBC News. Thank you for the correction. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No C-Class in WP:Chem
Hi Stone, you have re-assessed a few articles in WP:Chem to C-Class. However, a gentle reminder: for historical reasons, there is no C-Class in WP:Chem, so I have re-assessed these articles to B.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Sorry! I was assuming that this is a wiki wide thing to have C.Some of them might be mor Start than B then.--Stone (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of WP assessment is very interesting, at least I think so. Several years ago, it was an invention that we in the Chemicals Wikiproject developed for our own worklist articles (all 382 of them). Martin Walker was then active in the starting WP1.0 project, and took the successful grading scheme to a wider scope. Later, because FA was enormously difficult, another formal procedure was invented: GA, which nowadays tends to be as high-level oriented as FA, and for some (most?) wikiprojects the C-class was injected into the scheme (but not in WP:Chem, of course, not necessary for us). And then a recent C-Class was invented for people who thought it difficult to grade articles, and again we don't need that for WP:Chem. The best we can do is not spent time in assessing and reassessing articles, but in improving them. Success with our appreciated work. PS. I assessed all five articles for their true value; I didn't revert.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
 * The story with A-Class and its slow disaperance is also funny, but I had the Unassessed and Unknown-importance chemistry article in my aim and tried to get the number from 1900 to below 1000 which I have to do a few more, and than I go back to Chromium and Mercury, because making articles better is the task than assessing but sometimes it is fun to bring order to the chaos.--Stone (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages
Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! S B Harris 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: GAN Zinc oxide
Dear Stone, sorry for it took me so long to fix the ZnO page. Usually, I react much faster. I re-wrote the industrial production, added the history section and added minor fixes to the properties and applications. I'm not sure about your comments on unbalanced lead - it is actually dominated by real applications and just mentions future prospects. Please note that in the optoelectronics world, ZnO is perhaps the most popular (non-carbon) material nowadays; the optoelectronic applications of ZnO are generally important (LEDs and lasers were already produced, at least in the lab) and are one step short of commercialization. It is not superfluous to mention them. Could you please re-evaluate the article. Thank you. NIMSoffice (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wellman-Lord Process
Hi, Stone. I proposed to merge the Wellman-Lord Process into the Flue gas desulfurization article. You could discuss this here Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: yttrium borides
I copied that statement (water reactivity of YB6) without thinking. Either it was previously copied from yttrium carbide to YB6 safety datasheets (yttrium carbide does react with water) or the mistake is in the reaction products (hydrocarbons). I shall ask a specialist tomorrow. Thank you for careful reading ! NIMSoffice (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I got it from the new article bot User:AlexNewArtBot/ChemistrySearchResult and I look at most of the new chemistry articles. --Stone (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI: I have confirmed that most safety datasheets on yttrium boride, which you can read on the internet, apparently copied info on water reactivity from yttrium carbide. Yttrium carbide does strongly reacts with water, but yttrium borides do not react at all. One more example on importance of critical reading. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For me it looks like the people doing the MSDS have only a limited knowledge and put everything in which might save the company form being sued because of a lacking info. I was reading the safety instructions on a LiF bottle last week and it said you should use .... if the stuff ignites. So it must be flamable, but under what conditions?--Stone (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally found your reply to my comment. A month after you wrote it :) LiF is definitely not flammable. I worked with LiF crystals as spectroscopist (they are used as IR and UV windows and prisms). I think, here again, some guy copied MSDS info from Li to LiF, to be on the safe side .. NIMSoffice (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

invitation and request
Hi Stone, I notice you are among the most recent updaters of importance ratings for some articles within WikiProject World Heritage Sites. I would like to invite you to join WikiProject Historic Sites, a new wikiproject which has a great set of members but which I believe lacks, so far, any wp:WHS representation. Please browse and consider.

Whether or not you are interested in that, I wonder if you could please help out in a discussion about wp:WHS's importance ratings. I would appreciate very much if you could chime in and offer your thoughts, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic Sites/Assessment. Thanks! doncram (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Zinc ready for FAC?
Do you think zinc is ready for FAC? If so, do you want to be a co-nominator? --mav (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Petergans pointed out that the chemistry section needs a little work, but I think this is no show stoper. I will be glad to help as co-nominator. --Stone (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Molybdenum
Hey mate. I'm a bit busy trying to squeeze gamma-ray burst through FAC before I go back home for summer. When I do go home, I'll have access to some good elements resources, including Nature's Building Blocks, so I'd be happy to help then. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA nomination of Chromium
I have brushed up the writing and refs of that article and put my comments on the talk page. The level is certainly sufficient for GA and the article can go further to FA. However, before that, writing should be checked again, because I found lots of style inaccuracies within an hour, which I do not find in FAs. best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Actinium vandalism
A user added "I love cora mae fletcher", and I was trying to delete it. I suspect that a user is trying to use Wikipedia as a medium to confess/propose, which is inappropriate for this site. Vandalism of periodic elements is not appreciated.149.142.243.120 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

suggestion
the production images such as don't really need to include the entire scale. I think if you chop off the top part when it is the case (such as for zinc one chop off over 50%) there will be more space and the scale can be zoomed in a little bit. Nergaal (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

you are right
I didn't know (but could have guessed) that one should not add his/her own discoveries on WP (on the other hand, only the authors can give the most in-depth account of their work - but the balance between self-promotion and scientific correctness is dangerous). Although I believe the work I added on sodium is a major advance, it is really better that the community votes on this. The text is ready (so, no one has to do the work:-). so, you are right - and for that I thank you. Aoganov (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov

curiosity
Dear Harald,

You've mentioned that the other party, upon being contacted by you, told you a story of boron discovery that's 100% different from what I presented. You've probably seen the evidence that we give (there is actually more that we can say). But I wonder what the other party told you - it's curiosity, but also the need to know what exactly we need to refute. Could you please tell me - best of all, by email - what are their claims? Do they deny that they had our paper since 9 December 2006? I'd really appreciate if you can contact me.

P.S. There are many things that I didn't mention on the WP-page... For instance, Filinchuk was my best friend (he was my witness at my wedding) and that's why I trusted him and sent him my paper before publication. Or, that Dubrovinskaia and Dubrovinsky saw experimental results of Solozhenko (which obtained already in 2004 - and again, Solozhenko was their friend). They heard that there is a new phase and, secretly from Solozhenko, started working on it. Or maybe I should mention that several of Dubrovinsky's coauthors were present at our talk in August 2008 in Japan - and abstract of that lecture was actually published in a good journal, Acta Cryst., but Dubrovinsky et al. ignored citing it. There are so many wrongs on their side that I am puzzled how they can defend their position.

P.P.S. Please contact me by email - or just give me a call. Thanks a lot! Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that without a credible source (book, journal or credible web site) the whole thing is word against word and for this wikipedia is the wrong place. --Stone (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and this is why I made a website that presents DOCUMENTS -
 * here http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/false-claims
 * or here:
 * http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/filinchukmisconduct


 * We also have a detailed abstract at a major conference (attended also by the other party - as can be easily proven), published in a high-level journal (Acta Cryst). They could have cited this, but never did so.
 * I am confident that the other party can only say rubbish, but will have no documentary support. Sites like Wikipedia may help to settle this conflict just by showing who has evidence and who does not. I suggest to wait till they get back.
 * BTW, I understood from your comment that you have already got a reply from them (you mentioned their story being 100% different)?

Aoganov (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov


 * Not to cite others is not nice and the codex of scientist condems it, but you are not obliged to cite somebody. Not to cite conference abstracts and publications in press is done by some people, because they are hard to get. The problem is that the google site could be fabricated and the fear of publishing informations which have no credible source forces wikipedia to go for a high standart when it comes to sources. Verifiability is a good place to start. But the google site does not meet that standart.--Stone (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * About the conference abstract - you can easily find, in the same volume, abstracts of people from the other team (e.g. Dubrovinsky). Their abstracts are not on boron - but prove they were at the conference and had access to the conference volume (furthermore, at least two of their coauthors attended our presentation). Aoganov (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, but if they did not want to cite you or if they forgot about you, you do not have a prove which was the reason they forgot to cite you. Even if they would have told you and you would write about it here it does not qualify as a credible source. Eye witness first hand description published else where is something different, but this has to be a credible source. In the last paper they cite you, but even not citing somebody is not forbidden. If I would writte a paper claiming that I am the discoverer of gamma boron and a peer reviewed journal would print it, it would qualify to state it in wikipedia. If you and the other group would accuse me of plagiarism it does not qualify as credible source! Wikipedia is not to publish truth it is about sourced informations. After a peer reviewed journal would writte a article about the controversy it would be above the level necessary for wikipedia. If there is any chance that you can get a newspaper or better a peer reviewed journal to dedicate a article to the controversy it would qualify for a wikipedia article. A google page made by yourself is not good enough, sorry.--Stone (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Personally, I always preferred truth over formalities/policies - if the truth contradicts policies, I never hesitated to break policies. But of course, not everyone has the same rules - and I am perfectly happy with this. After all, some reasonable formal guidelines are "on average" useful.
 * Let me throw an idea - I have the email correspondence with these people (I've put it on google.sites for convenience, but the idea is that anyone interested in the controversy can obtain the original letters from me). Since you are witnessing this situation unfolding, I am happy to invite you to be my first-hand witness. Just tell me your email address, and I will forward the original correspondence to you. We can involve our mail server administrators, who will attest to the genuine nature of these emails. This way we will have credible sources (a first-hand witness, proven original letters, as required by WP) and the truth established.
 * P.S. Even before then, we do have a number of fully documented (in scientific press) facts - such as their participation in a conference where our abstract (not cited by them) appeared. Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thasnks for your help with the allotrophes of boron artcle. But about the controversy, the e-mail correspondence makes it a controversy between two groups, but the notability guidelines are very clear, as long nobody elese knows about this from an independent source this is most likely not notable enough for wikipedia. Second point is that if I read the emails and have prove of its origine, I cant put it into wikipedia, because my credibility is no bit better than yours, wikipedia makes it very clear name and rank or profession in real life do not lead to credibility only sourced information does. As long there is no source for the controversy above the level of e-mails it is hard to get a article, especially if other lifing people are involved, which might be start a lawsuite against wikipedia because of something in the text. Wikipedia is trying to stay out of trouble, if a source claims something this source is resposible. --10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sizes in pictures
In scientific publication, virtually any image should contain info on the object size. This is not the case for many pictures in the element pages (all kinds of ore pieces etc.). I don't know how to fix this easily, but something should be done. This is a potential threat to FAs. Regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Upto now I had no problem with that, but I will try to thgink when I upload the next images.--Stone (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate phrasing. The info on size does not have to be within the picture itself, it could well be in caption (e.g., "image width 1 cm"). Thus post-fixing is possible, no need to edit the picture itself. It could not be a problem in the past (simply because reviewers were not from the right field), but everything can change with people like myself entering WP.NIMSoffice (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Boron
I do not known if it is crystalline or amorphous boron. Sorry. --Xvazquez (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

gamma-Boron
Harald, you are much more experienced on WP than I and surely can decide for yourself. I would just tell you that (i) I am glad to see all your messages and actions on gamma-Boron; and can and will support them; (ii) I am waiting for resolution of the sockpuppet case, believing that fighting now is useless; I also refrained from editing all gamma-Boron related pages for now, despite misinformation is being brought; (iii) I've got quite some experience with this "dispute"; it is not a usual dispute, which people have on WP every now and then and which we are used to - beware and watch out. If there is anything you want to ask personally, you can find my email at my talk page. Best wishes.NIMSoffice (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing I see is that this dispute is below the notability threshold of wikipedia and therefore we should simply get ride of it. The point is that there is no source for it. And with unsourced material wikipedia guidliness are clear and straight forward. The decisssion not to edit the pages which are disputed is a perfect way to deal with the situation and after the resolution of the of the sockpuppet case there is still time to work on the articles. The interest in those articles is very low and in the next few weeks the readers will get info from sources which are of questionable credibility in wiki standar, but this is OK if we afterwards have a clear picture.--Stone (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Carl (CBM) said that somebody will nominate the boron controversy page for deletion, and this is the first productive step. To me, all deadlines are past, I just don't know who will do that. NIMSoffice (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Harald, let me just make a few remarks:
 * (i) Thank you for starting a page on boron allotropes. It's a good start. There were lots of mistakes (no offense, just boron is really a difficult element and literature on it is confusing - e.g. two tetragonal forms, the number of atoms in the unit cell of beta-B, etc.). I've corrected these. Your effort for WP is really appreciated.
 * (ii) I saw NIMSOffice's comments above and am unhappy... if there was any misinformation, it's the one brought by NIMSOffice (e.g. giving our phase diagram and crediting other works, where it did not appear, for it). I may not have had a chance to tell you that we are practically sure that we know who NIMSOffice is (he is a long-time collaborator of Dubrovinskaia, who previously worked in Belgium and now works at NIMS in Japan - email me and I will tell you his name). Using an anonymous username he pushes an agenda in favour of his collaborators. He personally oversaw the publication of Dubrovinskaia in STAM (journal managed by NIMS, and NIMSOffice is one of the junior editors there) and ensured it gets published quickly. I contacted the journal yesterday and explained the situation - and now you have his prompt reaction. I think NIMSOffice behaves cowardly and unethically, using WP in his interests. NIMSOffice should be banned from WP. 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Artifical
Harald, please be reasonable in reverting artifical=>artificial. It is a clear spelling mistake. We do not know who made it first (publisher or whoever, I do not think Fermi did) and there is no good reason to document this goof. NIMSoffice (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The title of the document is that way! A citation has to be word by word, with spelling errors. This is for quotes, but a title is a quote in my feeling.--Stone (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The text on the web page is artificial and the pdf is artifical, so you are correct! The artificial should be right! --Stone (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good articles/recent
Hey. I would just to update you on some developments with the WP:Good articles/recent page. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems, but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul of Boron
I have just finished basic revision of Boron, i.e. roughly set the content and added some missing refs and details (mistakes are likely). If this article is within your schedule, it would be great if you checked the content, especially chemistry, production, etc. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov
Please see and comment here. --mav (talk)

Osmium
I would rather review osmium GAN, if nobody minds (I haven't contributed much to that article). As to help, I'll create osmium dioxide today (and maybe brush a bit osmium tetroxide. The good point is that I am glad to help the element project, don't hesitate to discuss that. At the moment, my editing is scattered all over material science. Materialscientist (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Several spaces On the Origin
Hi, this edit added several spaces to the references list of On the Origin of Species, adding 917 bytes to an article we're trying to slim down as much as possible. Does this do something to help functionality or have some other useful effect? If possible, I'd like to give preference to keeping the article that little bit smaller. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Boron nitride
I have updated that article using the pdf you have linked me to. Many thanks ! Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing summaries
Hey Stone, would you mind adding summaries for mass-edits of talk pages. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaliapparat
I finally created an article for Justus von Liebig's kaliapparat. Comments and contributions are, as always, welcome. - Astrochemist (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Boron for GA
What would you say if I GA nominated boron ? (I know the subsection about use in semiconductor industry should be expanded, but I shall do that ASAP) Materialscientist (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now it is really good! I think good enough to go for GA.--Stone (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've done a lot for boron and all elemental articles, thus I will certainly ask you before nominating anything. (my "policy" here is not personal, but to do good for the whole elements project). I shall nominate now because the GAN queue is slow and will take weeks to start the review. An irrelevant note - I bravely attempted to bring all 15 lanthanides to B status, started editing all 15 articles off-line, but got stuck, and updated only half. The rest is still on my PC. Sometimes I take on tasks too big for me :-). Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I started to bring all articles away from Start a year ago and also got stuck. I now now that the radiaktive ones are not for me and I concentrated on the interesting but relative unknown elements of the first halfe of the transition metals. Now I am coming close to iron and the worke to get it above the GA level increases. Thanks for asking, to act nice and friendly and try to work with outhers in a polite way makes everything much easier. I saw and see a lot of very different behaviour and to know that others also do not like to work that way is good. I contributed a lot to boron, but you know a little bit more about it than I, so improve it!--Stone (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit I keep learning WP every single day. What I've learned from this story is when trying to get things done, it is so easy to overload yourself on WP (so much to do !). Thus I'm trying to take it easier now and more fun :-) Materialscientist (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Hi, Could you just point out where in WP:CHEM it relates to changing all the spelling? Haven't come across this before. Cheers &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!  16:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Best to look at the endless discussion at the aluminium talk page. I only changed the spelling where the chemistry background is clear. Most of the time when it comes to metalurgy I prefere not to change it but in the Bariumnitrate and Alumn cases the thing is clear.--Stone (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be going against the policies of WP:ENGVAR. --Steve (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the whole discussion, this is not american or british english it is IUPAC or not IUPAC. The wikiproject chemistry set the rule that all element names should be IUPAC conform. Caesium&mdash;Cesium Niobium&mdash;Columbium Aluminium&mdash;Aluminum Sulfur&mdash;Sulphur it does not make a difference if the article is written in british or american english if it is about chemistry it will follow the international guidlines for naming elements and copmounds adopted by all major scientific journals.--Stone (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All major scientific journals? Not Science... see.
 * Scince and Nature are high reputation, but they are no chemistry journals.--06:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BIPM uses "metre" not "meter", and they're the authority on SI. Therefore every article that uses this word as a unit of length should have its spelling changed to "metre". Agree or disagree? --Steve (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, on every page which is science related. --Stone (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in (just watching this page because of Boron). IUPAC and BIPM are very different stories. Scientific literature encourages neither SI nor metre. This could be a long discussion, but I wish you believe me as an active scientist and a regular referee for most major journals. Some journals (e.g., IOP) tried to insist on UK spelling in their journals, but gave up - author decides. More serious was an attempt to oblige usage of SI units, but it again failed - every science field sticks to its history and conventions regarding the units. Materialscientist (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Stone, This one is a chemistry journal, no?


 * Can you name any circumstance in which you think the policies of WP:ENGVAR apply? It seems like you've uniformly rejected this policy...Instead your policy is: Figure out which spelling variant is objectively better, then use it everywhere. Is that right? --Steve (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Beverage can, Iraqi aluminum tubes, Aluminum wire, Aluminum disc, Aluminum storm door are all OK in the way they are. Alum and Aluminium chloride are others and there we should follow the consensus of the wikiprojects.--Stone (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Vector (biology)
I saw that you reverted me when I readded the links to the disambiguation page from Eye drop, Pollination, Shrimp farm, and maybe a few others. (It also seems like you were using a tool, so perhaps you didn't see that I had explained my reversions in the edit summaries.) You linked the pages to Vector (epidemiology), but those would appear to be incorrect, as the references are not to organisms acting as vectors. In the cases of Eye drop and Pollination, they are not related to disease at all. Please keep in mind that it is all right for pages to link to the disambiguation page (or be altered to a redlink) if there is no applicable article to navigate to from the disambiguation page. It's better to keep an ambiguous link than make an incorrect one. I'm going to revert those three pages again for now, but please contact me if you have any concerns about this. As a more general thing, thanks for helping out with the links. Dekimasu よ! 00:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Soap
Luckily I was showing a student how wikipedia works and I found a note you put on the MCB portal, which is basically abandoned (WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology is used instead). I replied this:

Despite many metals have antibacterial or toxic proprieties, the article Toxic metals metals lists that they are toxic because they damage by radiation, act as catalysts or bind to stuff, but does not mention this theory, which seems pseudo-scientific (I mean "electron-robbing behaviour"?). Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Boron-trichloride-chemical.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Boron-trichloride-chemical.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 09:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Alfred E. Treibs
Greetings. I stole this article from German wiki. Maybe you can look it over. Interesanter Kerl.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know his story, because I read some of his publications. The biomarkers for the search for life on mars are quite intersting for my work and to be prepared for some talks I had to give I used hopanes and porphyrines especially the nickel and vanadium ones as a example. --Stone (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Took-a-look
Hi! I took a look at your nonexistent elements page. What stuck me is that you also have a lot of obsolete, but mostly legitimate names of existing elements, f.ex. Niton (Radon), Azote (Nitrogen), some "provisional names", f.ex. Radium Emanation, Thorium Emanation, Eka-Platinum and some not-so-legitimate obsolete names on existing names, such as Cassiopeium and Aldebaranium. It might be a good idea to sort the names into the categories:


 * F false discoveries:
 * FE erroneous theory:
 * such an element shouldn't exist.
 * FF false find:
 * without prejudicies of existence, a faulty claim for discovering a new element.
 * FD discovery failure:
 * when searching for a specific element, later known to actually exist, an identification of this element that later is shown to be wrong.
 * FN not reproduced:
 * when searching for a specific element, later known to actually exist, an identification of this element with a method that has never been reproduced for verification, and is deemed so flawed that it is unlikely the specific element was correctly identified.
 * FM mixture of multiple new elements:
 * a discovery of an alleged elements that has later been identified as mixture of new elements in their own right.


 * C contested discovery:
 * when searching for a specific element, later known to actually exist, an early identification of this element with a method that was so poorly described that it is not determinable whether the identification was correct or not.
 * O obsolete names of real elements:
 * a real element that has later changed name.
 * OC contested naming:
 * a name of a real element based on a false discovery
 * OO correct but obsolete naming:
 * a correct name that has later been substituted for a more modern one
 * ON national naming:
 * a national name that is only used within one nation
 * OP provisional naming:
 * a tentative name that was never intended to be the final name of the element

Otherwise: good job with Bohemium and Helvetium! ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 18:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Target-Projectile Combinations
Hi Harald. The target-projectile combinations I've listed are just a summary of the most likely nuclear reactions that current and future scientists might consider to make the element of interest, using the commonly available target actinide isotopes and stable projectiles at their max neutron excess. The neutron number of the compound nucleus can then be varied downwards by using suitable isotopes. The primary use of these lists is to highlight that the maximum neutron number in the compound nuclei (which affects the expected yield) is not simply a function of the actinide but depends on the exact combination. For example, despite the fact the use of 48Ca projectiles was chosen to provide the maximum mass number for the CN, this is not the case for element 118 where the combination 248Cm(50Ti,xn) provides an extra neutron compared to 249Cf(48Ca,xn). In addition, more asymmetric combinations will be of primary interest in the future (i.e using 248Cm targets) since quasifission is now known to be the primary reason for low yields in these reactions. The use of lighter projectiles is also useful from a technical viewpoint since higher beam currents can generally be used giving higher degrees of sensitivity. Finally, the lists allow users to see which reactions could be used to potentially synthesize specific lighter isotopes since only the 3-5n evaporation channels are of any practical interest. --Drjezza (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:DYK
Yes, I got addicted with DYK.. First thought was ... that in 19xx Fred Allison claimed to have discovered new elements alabamium (now astatine) and virginium (now francium)? but as a false claim I don't think it will get through. Thus maybe ... that Fred Allison developed a magneto-optic spectroscopy method xxx? where xxx is some attractive application of the method (not necessarily by Allison), such as xxx =, which was used to discover yyy. Another way is to find something useful, which Allison himself discovered with magnetooptics or anything else. I have no access to his articles right now. Don't hesitate to ask more questions. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was enthusiastic this morning to somehow get gnomium and Fred Allison to DYK, but got cooled down after a quick check. Both articles are kind of historical hoaxes, which is Ok, but they are not known to anybody. I also thought to play on Allison's magneto-optical method, but all principles of magneto-optics were set up and are credited to Faraday and Kerr, and thus I'm not sure Allison did much for that field. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that by reverting me on gnomium you restored a number typos and grammar errors and a duplicate reference. What was a problem with my edit? Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I saved the wrong version! Yours was the one I wanted to edit, but due to me I worked on the old version! --Stone (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fred Allison

 * Congratulations. When I said it would hardly go with that hook, I was too harsh, as I myself try to write "cool" hooks, but I never know what it is, cool :). One good reason to submit DYKs is that on DYK day, you'll get lots of vandalism, but also lots of good edits, thorough copyedit and comments, it is really useful before GAN or anything. Materialscientist (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Statistics : 2.1 k

Re:Manganese
My head is still recovering from a long travel back home. I simply started GA reviewing Manganese instead of Molybdenum :-). Manganese is at good level. I tried to sorted out chemistry and applications, but haven't read the text for continuity after that (leaving that to you :-). I trashed some text because of repetition and because I believe Zn-carbon batteries are rarely used nowadays.Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hjelt
Nice one, keep up the good work. We need your helping translating Finnish articles! Himalayan   21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Friedrich Oskar Giesel

 * Statistics 912 views

DYK nomination of Edvard Hjelt
Hello! Your submission of Edvard Hjelt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot
I know you use citation bot a lot. Do you have any comment here ("Incorrect doi translation") ? Materialscientist (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Edvard Hjelt

 * Statistics 432 views

NowCommons: File:Bromotrifluoromethane-chemical.png
File:Bromotrifluoromethane-chemical.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Bromotrifluoromethane-chemical.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK Nikolai Menshutkin
Please check my ALT1 at T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfa invitation
I was nominated for administrator position and would appreciate your comments here. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Norbert Röttgen
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Norbert Röttgen. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tanco Mine

 * 1.6kviews

Chemicals
Chemistry articles and the like seem to be your bag. Would you please take a look at Raney nickel? I think I have some pretty valid concerns that it is no longer of FA quality and should be taken to WP:FAR or fixed up greatly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gustavus Detlef Hinrichs

 * 676 views

Ludwig Knorr
Please check my copyedit and one place there: it reads as if Knorr patented Antipyrin in 1883, married in 1885 and telegraphed on the name change from his honeymoon (1885). Strange is that Filehne asked for a name change after the drug was patented (well, maybe the patent was just filed, not issued). Good work. Materialscientist (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the way it reads in his biography. The name used by Knorr was Antipyrin and Filehnewanted to market it under a better name which would be than not in the patent. The patent only secured the use of the substance as medical drug but the name might be protected by other means.--Stone (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Hello. You tagged for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. ''This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.'' Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ludwig Knorr

 * 566 views

DYK nomination of Johann Georg Anton Geuther
Hello! Your submission of Johann Georg Anton Geuther at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for details on tautomerism. Please comment again at that DYK entry - feedback is needed for the review process not to stall. Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Lipton
Your edits and mine at Bruce Lipton have been reverted several times by the article's creator. Coud you please join the discussion at Talk:Bruce Lipton? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Johann Georg Anton Geuther

 * 130 views

Fajans
Nope, I'm not an expert on him. AAMoF I simply decided to follow the name he had at his birth, but it's quite common for people to "internationalise" their first names upon reaching the American shores (Ksawery Tartakower comes to mind) and that surely needs to be mentioned. I added the other version to the header.  // Halibutt 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is not only with the "nationalist bloc", as you put it nicely. It is much wider, as it touches not only XXXX-Americans, but also a huge number of other people as well. Take for instance those who were of certain nationality, but came to prominence in another country.
 * A decent example would be Stanisław Narutowicz: the guy was a Pole and used that name throughout his life (lots of autographs preserved as a proof). However, he was one of the Signatories of the Act of Independence of Lithuania hence for some it would be more natural to have an article on him at "Stanislovas Narutavičius", which is the Lithuanised form. Another case are for instance the scientists working in some international institutions. I forgot the name right now, but there was this physicist I wrote an article about years ago. The guy was Romanian, used a Romanian name and so on. However, there were virtually no google hits for the Romanian version of his name, while there were some for an Anglicised version (he was working in the US). Yet another (similar) example is Andrew Golota: he is known as such in the English-speaking world, which doesn't mean it's his name.


 * Anyway, having said that, I believe the best option is to follow the rule of "what the person in question calls him/herself", followed by "what he/she has in her passport". It's not always that simple though (as both the case of Gołota and Copernicus show). Cheers  // Halibutt 04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Karl Schügerl
An editor has nominated Karl Schügerl, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fountain
Hi Stone, thanks for your suggestions, they were incredibly helpful. I am new to wikipedia and I am having trouble with images on the pyramid fountain article. Under Description there is an extra photograph of the fountain which was already used above the Description section. I edited the page and deleted the file, but it is still showing. Any suggestions?? Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acvinci (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It is located on New York St. behind University Library. I have added the coordinates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acvinci (talk • contribs) 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)