User talk:VexorAbVikipædia

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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Aluminium
Nice work on the naming of aluminium. I hope we can find the first concurrence of the citation of Guyton de Morveau. I will try to look also if I can find something. --Stone (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, while I was doing my research on when Morveau first called aluminium "alumine", I did encounter a very few sources (perhaps 3) that mentioned 1782 as the date, instead of 1761. However, there were so many sources that claimed that the correct year was 1761, I ignored the dissidents.  Finally, however, I realized that the dissidents were right.  It was too late for them, however, because I'd forgotten where I'd found the dissidents. (By the way, almost all of the sources that claimed 1761 had copied the text word for word from Wikipedia.)  It shouldn't be too difficult to find sources stating that Morveau coined alumine in 1782:  just enter "Morveau alumine 1782" into Google's search engine and then wade through the results.  VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are three secondary sources that state that Morveau coined the term "alumine" in 1782:
 * Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales: Etymologie:  Alumine (in French)
 * A. Darmesteter, De la Création Actuelle de Mots Nouveaux dans la Langue Française et des Lois qui la Régissent [On the contemporary creation of new words in the French language and on the laws that govern it], (Paris, France: F. Vieweg, 1877), p. 236. (in French)
 * Ursula Klein and Wolfgang Lefèvre, Materials in Eighteenth-century Science: A Historical Ontology (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: M.I.T. Press, 2007), p. 176.


 * VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Typhoid Fever
I changed your citation style to have separate references for each citation. I'm aware of WP:BUNDLING, but I feel it causes more problems than it solves - if somewhere else in the article someone later needs to reference one of those works, it gets painful. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I like to keep together ("bundle") references regarding the same subject. In this case, Eberth did work on typhoid after 1880, and Koch — even before Gaffky — verified Eberth's findings.  So I thought that those references should be bundled.  But I don't intend to squabble about it.  If you think that the references should be listed separately, so be it.  VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice work on the naming of nitrogen
Chaptal's own words are certainly authoritative, and this is has been a vexing and confused subject. The rest of your nitogen edits are most welcome also. It's smoother. S B Harris 03:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. They're much appreciated.  It is for this reason that I prefer to refer to primary sources, despite Wikipedia's prejudice against primary sources.
 * Regarding the change in nitrogen's name, Swedish chemist and mineralogist Torbern Bergman (1735–1784) and French chemist Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau (1737–1816) had been advocating a new chemical nomenclature for some time. The old alchemical system had grown unwieldy and didn't indicate the component elements of compounds.  Following the example of Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) in botany, Bergman and Morveau wanted a binomial system in which each metal salt would have a two-part name indicating both the metal and the acid with which it was combined; e.g., "copper (II) sulfate" instead of "blue vitriol".  Gases were also being renamed according to their properties; hence "oxygen" (acid maker) instead of "dephlogisticated air" and "nitrogen" (niter maker) instead of "phlogisticated air", etc.  Guyton de Morveau won Lavoisier over to this new system — and apparently Chaptal as well.
 * The etymology that the article originally presented, was correct but was a little confusing for a general reader, so I re-organized it (without eliminating any of the original content) in order to clarify to the line of derivation.
 * Glad to have been of service. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The references need still a little work. Some of the royal society stuff is not a book and are available with doi from royal society. It would be also nice to use the templates for the references.--Stone (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to re-format some of the citations using the templates. However, many times I cite old books that aren't consistent with the format that the templates assume.  For example, books with 2 columns per page and each column is numbered as if it were a page; or books without page numbers; or books with only every second page numbered; etc.  In the case of this article, Scheele's book was published simultaneously by two different publishers in two different countries.  Regarding "doi"s, I don't know what they are. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem I will have a look later. Thanks for the additional refrs it is always nice to have the old literature. --Stone (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The refs used at Henry Cavendish and Joseph Priestley are the same and point to the 1772 pristley publication.--Stone (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding the doi's of the references. And I was especially surprised that you were able to find Daniel Rutherford's M.D. dissertation on-line.  Merci!  VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you from your colleagues
Dear Smokefoot:

Thank you for recognizing my efforts to document the discovery of various chemical substances. The barnstar came as a pleasant surprise. I expect that Wikipedia's administrators have no shortage of other duties, so I'm grateful that you took time to convey these thanks. I'm all the more honored because the recognition came from people who are best qualified to appreciate the work. It's an incentive to continue to wade through reams of 19th century technical journals in order to unearth the history of the sciences. Again, you have my sincere thanks and best regards, VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that, by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.  (for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see WP:MEDDEF)
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please be aware that predatory publishers exist - check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead, that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) More generally see WP:MEDHOW
 * 6) Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 7) We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 8) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities.
 * 9) Do not use URLs from your university library's internal net: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 10) Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article.
 * 11) Please format citations consistently within an article and be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books; see WP:MEDHOW for how to format citations.
 * 12) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 13) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDHOW will help you with formating refs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Huygens footnotes in Pyréolophore
Thank you for your well researched notes about the theoritical work by Huygens that led up to the Pyréolophore. If the Pyréolophore was a stand alone piece in a magazine then your work would have made a nice side bar. Unfortunately it doesn't really fit in well as a Wikipedia footnote. Fortunately, it does fit in well if we simply add a link to in the Pyréolophore article to Christiaan Huygens and then put all that wonderful detail there. Let me know if you want help retrieving the information from the Pyréolophore article's history or help inserting it into the Huygens article.  Stepho  talk 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbiogenesis refs
Hi, I note your very tidy reffing with gratitude. However, the new analytic style is very repetitive. Could we not name each 4-part paper just once, and then list the dates of the parts after it like this:

"Title at some considerable length" [url Part 1, 1900] [url Part 2, 1901] [url Part 3, 1902]  [url Part 4, 1903]

--- I hope you see what I'm driving at --- which would display far more briefly without losing any of the hard-won accuracy? All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objection to your presenting the citations in a more compact form. However, my knowledge and abilities regarding such formatting as you have suggested are limited. So I would ask that you reformat the citations yourself rather than rely on my limited skills. Also, just after your notice appeared, I added a series of quotes to one of the citations. Those quotes are mentioned in the text of the "History" section. I would like to retain those quotes (and my English translations of them), so that readers could see for themselves what Schimper was thinking in 1883 (rather than relying on second-hand accounts). If retaining those quotes would result in a bulky reference, perhaps a "Notes" section could be appended below the "References" section, in which the quotes and their translations could be posted. (Sorry to create more work for you. If necessary, I could create a "Notes" section myself.  That is within my capabilities.) VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the reply. I'll take a look and think what to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Names of geological time units
I notice, while adding information to Vicipaedia about the origins of these names, that I am often borrowing and rearranging footnotes written by you; possibly you were responsible in every case (it would take me a long time to check that). I also noticed the incident at Permian in which one of those sources was deleted. Luckily Vicipaedia is comfortable about citations of primary sources! Anyway, I just wanted to tell you I'm doing this and to thank you for setting that material out so neatly. Andrew Dalby 14:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Dalby, Thank you for informing me of your work. I did indeed investigate the origins of the names of many geological eras and periods. I posted the original, primary sources for the names. I recall that someone wanted me to cite a secondary source in order to corroborate my findings — particularly regarding the origin of the name of the "Cenozoic" era. I'd found that it first appeared in the Penny Cyclopaedia of 1840, which, not being a scientific journal, seemed an implausible venue for the announcement of a major division of geological time. Eventually I found the following comprehensive reference: Wilmarth, Mary Grace (1925). Bulletin 769: The Geologic Time Classification of the United States Geological Survey Compared With Other Classifications, accompanied by the original definitions of era, period and epoch terms. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Presumably the United States Geological Survey was an adequate authority to corroborate my findings. If I have lightened your labors, I'm glad to have done so. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The Rebel Media
Please see my comment at Talk:Tommy_Robinson_(activist).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat?
Please read WP:NLT and state unequivocally that you have no intentions of either taking legal action yourself or suggesting to anyone else that they take action. You should probably do that at the talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Battle of Karánsebes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Karánsebes, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Battle of Karánsebes (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 11 April 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)