User talk:Beetstra/Archive 3

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here and please don't forget to sign your post You may want to have a look at the subjects in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject. The question you may have may already have been answered there Dirk Beetstra

Wikipedia ads file info – show another – #145

I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN. COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

Responding I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me. I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header. ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first. My view in a nutshell: External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines). Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link: If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information'). Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (you can consider to remove other links covered in the dmoz). Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects. Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this) If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point. The answer in a nutshell Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines. If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1]. Reliable sources I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong. Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs. Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog. Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof. Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot. Archives This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Timestamped threads older than 7 days are automatically archived to the current archive Talk started 20/3/2006 1 - 7/9/2006 2 - 29/11/2006 3 - 05/02/2007 4 - 05/03/2007 5 - 15/03/2007 6 - 29/07/2007 7 - 06/11/2007 8 - 31/03/2008 9 - 22/09/2008 10 - 03/02/2009 11 - 17/05/2009 12 - 13/11/2009 13 - 27/5/2010 14 - 13/12/2010 15 - 5/7/2011 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - current 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 -

Re your comment to me on my User Talk:mbeychok page

Your comment on my Talk page:

Dear Mbeychok. I have responded to the reactions on theoretical plate, and also to V8riks answer on his talk page. Why is it, that when chemical engineers are editing an article, contributions of other chemists are described as 'comic strips' and 'cracking jokes'? Until now I have not seen any of these remarks on any of the 3500 pages on my watchlist (except when made by first-time editors). Could we please get into an open discussion, and try to write an encyclopedia readable for the normal public. If a subject cannot be explained to the normal public (say, a high-school student, though a target person with a lower education is preferable), it may be worth considering to not put it into the wikipedia, but into specialised mediawiki projects. Or otherwise, please tone the subject and the discussions down to give it an entrypoint suitable for the above described public. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My response:

Dirk Beetstra, when or where have I characterized anyone's edit of Theoretical plate as "cracking jokes" or any such derogatory remarks? As for the discussion on the Distillation page, all I did was ask V8rik if he did not consider the "Simple analogy" section to be non-encyclopedic?

Your remarks indicate to me a dislike of chemical engineers, so you have stereotyped me as someone you don't like. And you have reverted the edit by Ketankhare purely on the basis of that dislike rather than on the merits of the "Simple analogy" section involved. mbeychok 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I already answered on your talkpage (we can keep the discussion there, better to keep it on one place (or choose to copy it integrally here, either way is OK). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, this is my last response on your talk page or mine on this subject until you post an apology for bringing me into this. Just in case you think otherwise, your intended or non-intended slur about "50 years of experience" in your comments to Ketankhare on the Theoretical plate talk page did not go over my head. mbeychok 21:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Read relevant talk page. Ketankhare 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing importance tags without doing anything useful

The way to reduce maintenance backlogs is not to split it up into smaller categories and to say that if there aren't enough pages in each category to be a backlog, then the entire thing isn't a backlog. The backlogs should actually be processed. While yes, that particular tag does say something misleading, the purpose of the category, and all of the other templates that put things into the category (such as {{notability}}) are to question the actual notability of an article. Perhaps, in theory, splitting {{importance}} from the category would be a good thing to do, but in practice, people almost always use it in the same way as {{notability}} is used, not in the way that it's meant to be used according to the text of the template, so it wouldn't do much good. --Rory096 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

It feels very nice to get support. My examination will be starting soon and will get over on 12 December 2006. After that there is a lot of work to be done I suppose. I had started the project long back, it is dormant as of now. Anyways, could you be kind enough to write your comments in the relevant sections of the project page. The link is here Chemical and Bio Engineering WikiProject Ketankhare 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ketankhare"

J&J Template

Oddly, the article page has a lot of external links. Thus, I was a little strapped. I believe most of my template creations are well received by their transclusion sites. I understand that external links may be a problem. Maybe I should remove all external links on the template. TonyTheTiger 23:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that you say that the reversion was not due to the external links but because you don't find templates with corporate brand useful. This is unusual. I imagine that you have an active role in some of the pages that the template linked to. We need to coordinate what you think a useful template would be for J & J and discuss what changes need to be made. I would like to replace some sort of template that won't get torn down by you. TonyTheTiger 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed most unlinked text in the Template:J&J. Let me know if you think it would be useful to add it to the selected brands now. TonyTheTiger 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:ChemicalSources

Did this ever become active? It's a little misleading to call it an external link when it goes somewhere internally - would there be any perceived harm in removing it until/unless the Special: page mentioned above is approved? -- nae'blis 06:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the remark. Well .. yes and no .. I have been waiting for some time for someone to chip in and write this, and then started to hack it myself. We do have a properly working copy now since about 3-4 weeks (see http://chemistry.poolspares.com). I have asked around to chemists to give their opinion, but have not heard a lot. It feels like there is no need for it, and indeed, I will renew the discussion on the chemicals portal, and otherwise indeed consider to remove the template (well, if it gets implemented, I will also remove the tag, along with a massive number of external links which then get covered by the special:chemicalsources).

But, in a way, yes, I do believe it does harm to remove it, there is still a bias when external links are added, in this way they at least go (sometimes) to the list, and external links can be removed without discussion. The only problem is indeed that it is technically not an external link, but I do, for now, not see another solution to get this on all pages. Maybe the template should be cut loose from the external links section, and be a box at the bottom, with a couple of links programmed by CAS, and in there a link to the chemicalsources page (which needs reformatting, then). I percieve that when there is no link to a full list, people will blindly add links again, with all reasons as stated in another discussion on my talk-page. But maybe we have to live with that problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, I've not been on wikipedia long, so perhaps you can give me a global perspective about what this chemicalsources is hoping to achieve, and how it fits in with wikipedia generally. I compared your chemicalsources "Water" article with the water article on wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the point of chemicalsources is to focus only on the chemical elements of that substance. If true would that mean that the chemistry would be removed from the water page and pages like bromobenzene (which are all chemistry) would move from wikipeida to chemicalsources? Sorry if this is obvious question! --Quantockgoblin 08:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhh .. obvious .. not at all (I even have to distill out the question, you provide me with a line of thinking which I have apparently, not made clear) .. No, I would like the special:chemicalsources to start to exist on wikipedia, just like the special:booksources (which already exists). Chemical compounds and all stay here, but on the pages of the chemicals all the chemical identifiers get a link (using a parameter) to the special:chemicalsources (so a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/special:chemicalsources?CAS=123-45-6, e.g.). Clicking the link brings up the result page where all the 'search on CAS' links result in searches (within that database/company) on that CAS number. So chemical pages will stay here. Now the external link that is connected to the current CAS number is biased, just as the addition of only one or two suppliers. The page, where the special:chemicalsources is now demonstrated, is only a temporary site, it will go, maybe soon. Hope this clarifies. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, the eMolecule search at [2] throws an error for unavailable supplier column. Might the c=1 in the query the problem? Beside, some icons or picture might be nice for highlighting the databases. JKW 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You can just tweak the page 'wikipedia:chemical sources', do you have an example search, I did not see that error. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Splitting "NN"

Off the top of my head, it's not entirely clear-cut. Granted it's large, at 5,000-ish, but it's far from being the largest "maintenance" category. I think at bottom it's a matter of what's the best "producer-consumer" relationship: if it were split up, would multiple specialist groups assess notability and clean them up (one way or another) more rapidly. Or would it lead to the same people simply having to deal with more categories? You might ask at some of the larger wikiprojects if they have an interest in "processing" separated-out categories in their area (as you may have noticed I'm trawling around the idea of doing the 'uncategoriseds' on that basis). Alai 15:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I thought of you. But OK, so that category is not that big. Someone was deleting the tag from articles not stating any importance, 'complaining' that there were too many articles clogging that category .. I have put them all back with the comment that that was not going to solve the problem. Did think of you, but could not remember your name at that point, and digging was too much work at that point :-p. I'll leave it at this, that category is biggish, but not too big. It is OK with me, then. I'll clear out an {{importance}} every now and then. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Splitting by month is another possibility, even if there's only one group of "consumers". It also has the advantage of being easily bottable, once up and running. Alai 15:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a plan. I'll feed this back to .. well .. he or she who was removing the tags .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and suggested this at Category talk:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance. Let's see if this meets with general approval. Alai 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuous distillation

Thank you for requesting my review/consultation on the Continuous distillation article and for complimenting my drawings. Just in case you did not know, I am both a chemist and a chemical engineer. I have BS and MS degrees in both. I have taken a look at your sandbox rewrite of the Continuous distillation article. I understand your point about including some explanation for a non-technical reader. I would like to edit it to improve the explanations using appropriate chemical engineering terminology, but adding short explanations for the non-technical person where practical. We also have different styles about how to explain things. I think if I spend some time editing this sandbox version, we can reach a version acceptable to most of us. Unfortunately, I'm very busy these days with other things and it will likely take me a while to get to it. I hope you are willing to wait a bit. After all, there are no deadlines in Wikipedia. H Padleckas 04:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have indicated to H Padleckas my intention to have a look at this article in the near future. I agree with your view that it could do with a rewrite LouisBB 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your message on H. Padleckas' page, and was going to answer on your page. Milton Beychok and I have done a major overhaul already, the article is in my sandbox. I was going to write something on the talkpage of continuous distillation and copy the sandbox version over the version in the main namespace later today, but feel free to have a look first. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacement of methanol

Aangezien je zelf chemie hebt gestudeert zou je van de productie beter op de hoogte moeten zijn als ik. Aangezien je mijn edits weggomt stel ik voor dat je dan zelf een tekstje opmaakt over de ionische vloeistoffen die methanol moeten gaan vervangen.

Groeten, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.184.213 (talk • contribs)

I am going to answer in English, we are on an English wikipedia. I am not going to write a replacement text, a) the text does not belong on these pages, and b) it is absolutely not WP:NPOV. It might, when written properly, have a place on ionic liquid. Cheers, see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Dirk, take a look at the Hydrodesulfurization article, which is one that I am merging. There is section in it called "Substrates". I don't know what the word means in this context. Is there some more common word that could replace it? Like "Other hydrogenation targets" or "Other chemical species" or what else?? I would appreciate your help. - mbeychok 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I copied the section to, and subsequently demolished it in your sandbox version, and left a comment on the talkpage, there. Feel free to demolish it further. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: edits to the trichloroethylene page

Hello Dirk,

I've added references to the trichloroethylene article for the revised content in the health effects section. Hopefully these address your comment concerning sources and references. Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments about them.

With regard to your comment about the health effects content possibly being in conflict with wp:not: having looked through the guidelines, I'm not clear where the conflict might lie, and we may need to discuss this further. The problems I see with your suggestion (a shorter health effects section, and a separate section discussing physiological effects) are that the sections would be overlapping, or the shorter more discrete health effects section could be misleading. There may be some tightening I could do, but I would encourage maintaining the health effects discussion as the single section, as it's now written. I am interested in your thoughts on this proposed approach.

The story for this compound differs considerably from 1,1-dichloroethylene or 1,1,2,2-tetrachlorothane. There is high interest by the general public about TCE right now, particularly about the controversy over potential human health risks. The potential for human exposure to TCE is much greater than these other two substances. We know so much more about the risks from TCE compared with dichloroethylene or tetrachloroethane, which paradoxically makes the story for TCE less straighforward. TCE has become a very polarized topic, and as befits the Wikipedia concept, I've tried to present it in an objective manner. Again, I am interested in your thoughts here.

Drop me a note in my user talk area if you would like to discuss these matters further.

Cheers,

John

(Copied from my user area)

There is a copy of the article in my user:beetstra/sandbox, feel free to use that copy for further enhancements so you can copy that version later over the main-namespace version, though you can also do that in the original off course.

I've only now gotten back to editing the article. I will look over your comments and edits, and produce a revised section, in the next day or so. Thanks again for your input

Jlowe19 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on your sandbox's Discussion page

Dirk, I offered some comments on your sandbox's Discussion page. Regards, - mbeychok 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuous distillation (2)

(moved from my sandbox Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

The principle for continuous distillation is the same as for normal distillation: when a liquid mixture is heated to its boiling point, the composition of the vapor above the liquid will be different from that of the liquid. If this vapor is then separated and condensed into a liquid, we find that it has become richer in the lower boiling component of the original mixture.

This is exactly what happens in a continuous distillation column. A mixture is heated up, and routed into the distillation column. On entering the column, the feed starts flowing down but part of it, richer in lower boiling component(s), vaporizes and rises. However, as it rises, it cools and while part of it continues up as vapor, some of it (enriched in the less volatile component) begins to descend again.

Sorry Dirk, there is something wrong in the first sentence here.

There IS a great difference between coontinuous distillation and normal distillation, inasmuch as in what you call normal distillation something approaching a temporary equilibrium which is set up, until a differential quantity of the vapour is removed. At that point a new equilibrium is set up and so on. It is therefore also called differential distillation. Every drop coming through to the receiver has a different composition! Of course, the composition of the still changes as well.

In continuous distillation, as mentioned later an equilibium condition is set up which results in the product composition being constant !

What I said earlier has also needs to be changed somewhat, as rather than saying that 'This is exactly...' we ought to say 'This is more or less...) Here is exactly my point that I keep on talking about: vapour liquid equilibria:

Just listen to this if you please: As Henry will tell you, this used to be measured by taking a batch of liquid and boiling it under total reflux, nothing added, nothing removed for such a time as no change is taking place in the two compositions. There is a very very small receiver the quantity of which is negligible compared with that of the still (if you like) which can be sampled by removing a minuscule fraction to determine vapour composition. It is possible that now other means are used for measuring vapour composition, and which does not need sample takeoff and the receiver size can be decreased even more. (Henry can tell us)

Continuous distillation is much nearer to this setup than to 'ordinary' differential distillation'. (In both cases there is zero change in vapour and liquid composition) This is why I am in favour of mentioning the introduction of equilibria at this stage, not just because its determination is the first step in design calculations. In continuous distillation there is (at least in the simplest binary case) one lower boiling component takeff, and one higher boiling component takeoff.

It would nicely fit to the start of this section with a drawing of an apparatus with 100% reflux.

I am not going to make any changes myself anywhere, you can consult anybody about it, but this is correct! I am sending you a note as well

LouisBB 15:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not concur with this, and I will explain why (but you are right, there the paragraph has something which is unclear). Distillation is the principle, which has different operation modes. Two of these are batch distillation, and continuous distillation (and the more 'exotic ones', like e.g. steam destillation, which require quite an explanation in how they are different from the batch/continuous versions, but that should go in separate articles). Both are distillations working on the same principle, that the vapour above the liquid is different in composition than the liquid (well, except some rare cases). The difference starts indeed when we start taking samples. In continuous distillation the everything is kept at a constant composition, in batch distillation the composition changes.

I have made a small change to the explanation, more might follow, needs a bit of a tweak. Thanks for pointing me at this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

subst citation templates

I know. I was testing something. I seem to have fixed the problem. — Omegatron 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, saw your good edits, and then these two 'bad' ones .. thought I'd lend a hand. By the way, your edit summaries are sometimes a bit cryptic, triggers me to have a look, while that may not be needed. But keep up the good work, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. Always writing edit summaries is my big weakness, so I have an automatic diff summary-writing thing. Unfortunately, it sometimes writes cryptic things... — Omegatron 15:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You should talk to Werdnum on IRC (#wikipedia), he is working on that as a built-in feature. Maybe it is possible to combine your efforts. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate issue

I seem to have upset someone - badly - no crisis, but slightly ugly. If you get a chance, please check Cp2Ni and related work. Cheers,--Smokefoot 14:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's let it be for a while and I will email you if this continues. Thanks--Smokefoot 16:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll see, cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Aspartame

Please see my response to your posts on the discussions of Aspartame, there is credible scientific proof about the breakdown of this substance eventually in to formaldehyde as you will see if you read the topmost references, this therefore must be included on the main Aspartame page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.244.138 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Aromatic alcohols

What's wrong with puting aromatic alcohols into one category? It's to point out that there are some aromatic compound with hydroxyl group, that definitly aren't phenols - just like Benzyl alcohol. It's an exception kind of exception and it's quite confusing to some people. I wasn't planning to add anymore categories of this type. If can't we have aromatic alcohols, should we put aromatic amines and others into aromatic compund category??? JRS.pl 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

expand tags

It's an interesting problem. Here's my take on it. These articles have been in the "unclear importance" category for a loooong time and nothing has changed. The only way these will change is for someone with relevant knowledge of chemistry to expand them and I don't think leaving them in this category will help much. The way I see it, "unclear importance" is a fairly negative category: it expresses concerns that perhaps the article's subject is not suited for inclusion on Wikipedia while the expand category is more positive in that it says "sure, this has a place here but we really wish it wasn't such a poor stub". One way to solve the problem would be to have parameters to the expand tag that allow us to create categories like "chemistry articles to be expanded" so that people from the relevant projects can work on them. I don't think it makes sense to put all of these articles for deletion: although their value is marginal, I think that ideally we would want these articles to exist with some extra content. Pascal.Tesson 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that point, and well, it does not matter whether they are too long in the importance or expand category (switching every now and then does at least result in them not being too long in a category, and they see some other company). But they are now twice in an expand-type category (stub and expand), what about adding importance also, the articles still do not state any importance, anyway? If they get importance, they will also move into more appropriate categories, and chances increase they will get some more attention. I will (and have) fought AfD's on articles with an importance tag, we can't work on all of them all the time, and well, expanding articles about chemicals is not my prime interest, it takes time (every now and then I do one). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Manofwar4662 comments

*phew* I'm wondering how best to parry the recent comment from User:Manofwar4662 that reads "I'll be adding content and citing the link. I know what I did is right because I did read the rules, but I know I can't win against the establishment. I'll be adding some content and the same links. And the site I added is CONTENT rich, just so it's clear." It is not true that 'what I did is right' but how can we best get that across to this new user? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the site is not a reliable source, I have already removed some other ones. I will probably even revert if he tries to use it as a reference, bit depending on how he adds it.

Secondly, one of his earlier remarks to me was close to a personal attack, and again I feel like adding a warning template about that ({{civil1}}?).

I have been fighting spam links for a long time already (the banner on top of this talkpage is not there for nothing). I will keep an eye on it, and see what happens. Thanks for the help! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. It was my first 'incident' of this kind. I have the feeling that my encouraging him to add content and use the links as support was, as you imply, only a half solution (based on source reliability) - even though I did mention that those links might even then be removed and primary source links might be required. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The editor might have done their homework at Wikipedia:Verifiabilty and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and come away with the impression that the sources were acceptable. I find I inadvertantly mentioned a couple of specifics mentioned in WP:RS without knowing I was doing this ... I'll keep in mind to point out specifics in future 'incidents'. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he seems to be a hard case, certain that he 'does the right thing'. I don't think he did his homework on wikipedia:reliable sources, the data is not peer-reviewed, so it can't be that reliable. It may contain new information, which is not backed up by peer-reviewed data, yet. I only hope his first real contribution is going to be a good one, so that we don't have to revert that edit. We'll see how it ends. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting on my user pages. I'm glad you saw it, because I didn't even notice. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And that while you are always so active in hunting down vandalism. But you're welcome! Happy vandalhunting ;-). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in line to say thanks, too

... for the note and the actions, which I sensed. It was a crazy situation in many ways, and my sharp tongue did not help. These dudes actually know something and could contribute usefully, if we can get them to stop selling stuff. --Smokefoot 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And you are welcome too. I'll keep my eye on the articles involved, and hope the person involved will start again making usefull edits ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My new compound articles

Thanks for tidying up after me at glycerol 3-phosphate and pyrophosphatase. Adding such esoteric things to the wiki always makes me think nobody cares about them since they didn't exist beforehand, and it's nice to see the topics immediately getting attention and cleanup. It reassures me that my good faith edits, even if I rushed through them while studying for a biochem midterm, will eventually be edited into something useful. Robotsintrouble 11:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am just looking after (all?) chemical compounds in the wikipedia, keeping an open eye for new ones. Make sure these articles get linked to, and people will end up improving them. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dodecahedrane

No arguments about mid instead of low. I tend to be (overly?) conservative in assessment, something carried over from another wikiproject. --Rifleman 82 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too conservative ;-) .. By the way, my compliments, nice work. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism disappears from Nimesulide article

I noticed you were editing the Nimesulide article at the same time as me. I just added the POV Adverisement tag. Compare the current article with this previous version and you'll see some evil drug company troll sanitized the article, removing references to problems with the drug. I don't have any competence in this area, so perhaps you can fix the article. All I can tell is that it's not neutral. Here in Mexico my daughter was perscribed the drug, and after she had a bad reaction, I searched around on the Internet, and found that pedeatric use of it is forbidden in many places. Something people should be aware of, and that should be mentioned in the article. This link [3] was also removed from a previous version. - Andrew—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.67.231.185 (talk • contribs)

I saw your post on the talkpage, and started looking around. I already reinstated the old section, and resorted the section. I have no clue about the medicine (hence the 'expert' tag). I have removed the advert tag again, although it is still quite positive about the compound (though I think the first sections are just scientifically correct, even when the references are missing). When there are scientific references, pertaining the negative issues of the compound, I think the first half can be rewritten also. I don't know anything at all about the controversy, could you write some things, I'll help you with layout, text, etc.? Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I know very little, just what I've seen on some Web sites. Wish I could help more, but no time right now. Glad someone is watching what happens on these pages. Surely the person who sanitized the article is on the payroll of a drug company, no? Notice that one external article (the second one in my first comment here) claims that it's the drug companies in the industrialized world that don't favor the drug, and have carried out a smear campaign. Good luck and thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.67.231.185 (talk • contribs)

I am not that fast in pointing my finger somewhere. Both IP-addresses are totally anonymous (certainly not traceable to a company), it might have been good fait, it's better to assume that. On 450 million users there will of course be some that react wrong on the compound (and if that is you, it is really bad, but the statistics can still be very positive). As there is something on controversy in the history of the article, I think that needs to be named in the article. But for that also references need to be added, which back that up. We'll see how it develops, hope to see you back some time, when you have time to help. As I said, my knowledge is next to nothing about this compound (I am a chemist, not a pharmacist), but I'll keep an eye open. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Betamethasone

I'm curious how you can say that the addition to Talk:Betamethasone is something more than nonsense: "Just taking an ad out - scrubbing the name Schering-Plough like it's on a billboard". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the addition is a bit strange, but he tells what he is going to do to the page, and signs, it is not a vandalism thing, it is not too offensive, and it is a talkpage, which are less strongly censored anyway. But well, seeing it is a talkpage, it could have gone as well. It is just, I don't think it is an illegal addition to the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'illegal'. I guess I came down on the side of "huh - what? ... hmm - was that a doodle or an attempt at a complaint - dunno *erasure*". I don't usually pull things off talk pages - it was a bit out of the ordinary for me to do that. Thanks for the thoughts. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, no harm done. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor

I keep seeng you around in the history. Keep up the good work! cant beleive you dont have an award, where do i put this?

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award goes to Beetstra for his tireless contributions to chemistry related articles, loads of them!!! ...also for all his copyediting, expanding and sourcing all that stuff that I've noticed him do!!! Keep up the good work !!! frummer 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I will, later, when I am not busy fighting spam, copyediting articles, reverting vandalism, expanding articles, or hacking the mediawiki, collect my barnstars and tokens, and put them on my userpage. Cheers again! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BN Allotropes

I'm not super sure either - but my feeling is that allotrope is a term used for elements only (S, P, C being the big examples, as you know), and that for molecules we say isomers and for solids the term is polymorph. ZnS has two polymorphs, not two allotropes, etc. I'll look around. Cheer, --Smokefoot 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'll change to polymorph for now. I already got the feeling that allotrope is purely for elements. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neuromath responding: Thanks for your welcome and offer of help

Thank you for your cordial welcome to Wikipedia on my talk page. I've found a case where I may need the help you offered sooner than expected. I've already discovered a situation where I would be inclined to revert a page, but after reading the warnings on Help:Reverting about the need to be cautious in reverting, I decided to ask for your help instead. I would appreciate it if you could offer me some advice (or, better yet, handle the situation yourself and explain your reasoning to me, so that I'll be better equipped next time).

The unregistered user 67.168.217.240 has been editing entries for plural forms of words, which were redirects to the corresponding entries for the singular forms, and replacing them with very brief and very poorly written separate articles. This has been done for Monotremes, Marsupials, and Neanderthals. The first two have already been reverted to redirects to Monotreme and Marsupial by other users, but the third has not. I think this user 67.168.217.240 is acting in good faith but is monumentally clueless, but I'm not sure, so I can't make a clear judgment that this is vandalism. But it certainly looks to me as though speedy action is warranted, vandalism or not. Comments?

Neuromath 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have dealt with the situation. But my recommendations for a next time: If articles do not comply with the wp:mos (in this case, the subsection in WP:NC), it is best to either to revert, or to {{speedy}} it (I've done the former in this case, though I first did the latter; was busy with something else and did not read your question good enough). Indeed it is best to assume good faith, and to add a {{welcome}} to the userpage (or a {{welcomeanon}} and add a section about a specific example and explain that his work is not according to policies (if it is a good entry, tell him that his work is merged into the another article, or otherwise, that it is deleted. You can have a look at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, there are many predefined templates there which deal with many situations (I used in this case a {{NC0}}), but that does not always work. Choose one from the first column, level 0, good faith edit if you think the person is editing in good faith. Hope this helps.

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep your tips in mind for any further such cases which arise. —Neuromath 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need to ask your advice again about how to handle continued malfeasance by this same unregistered user 67.168.217.240. Your warnings, and mine after them, and those of another admin (Alphachimp), do not seem to be having much effect; and, frankly, I have my doubts as to whether he has ever seen them, despite my linking to his talk page in most of my edit summaries of reverts of his actions. His usual modus operandi remains essentially the same: replacing legitimate redirects (now from alternative names of biological species, as well as from plurals and misspellings) with very short, frivolously written articles. His count of redirects trashed is now well into double digits. I have escalated the warnings to the level of {{test3}}, and he has continued after that. I would proceed to {{test4}}, and Wikipedia:Vandalism seems to imply clearly that any user can (and, where appropriate, should) do this; but some discussions I've seen would appear to imply that giving {{test4}} warnings is something that only administrators do, and the text of the warning itself appears to imply that the person giving the warning has the power to enforce it (which I, of course, do not). Please advise. (This time I will be happy to go through with the next step myself, if appropriate, rather than ask you to do it for me.) —Neuromath 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless he ignores that ugly orange banner on top of every page, he must have seen them. Don't worry, you can issue test4 warnings, that is not restricted to administrators. Next time I would just give him a {{test4}}/{{test4im}}, and by the next time, report him to WP:AIV. Be sure to note that this IP is just an occasional editor, but that he is regularly doing this. I'll put him on my list as well, see what I encounter. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the information and advice! But having never been on the receiving end of a vandalism warning myself, I was puzzled by your reference to the "ugly orange banner on top of every page"; I've read Wikipedia:Vandalism, but I don't recall seeing any mention of an orange banner automatically generated by the warning templates (or is it something special that you added with administrator powers?). Could you point me toward a description of this orange banner and how it is produced? —Neuromath 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification—I've seen your message on my talk page, and I now realize that the orange banner appears whenever one has unchecked messages on one's talk page, and has nothing to do with vandalism warnings specifically. I'm also unsure, in hindsight, how I got the idea that you were an administrator. Perhaps you just have a knack for sounding authoritative! :-) —Neuromath 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemical sources

Thanks for the great explanation. I think I get it now. Also, if you've got a link to the bugzilla request you sent, do send it my way so I can vote for it.  :) Fair winds! --Merovingian ※ Talk 09:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks like it would be a good addition to Wikipedia. --Merovingian ※ Talk 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Re removed advertisement on myristic acid page

Beetstra, my mention of the trademark Resultz was not advertisement: isopropyl myristate is the sole active ingredient of this preparation and, as far as I know, this preparation is the only example of myristate as a therapeutic agent. You make me lose my time. I will re-edit this page. Please read carefully and research someone else's edit before reverting. Emmanuelm 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted again. I did research, and I don't like being yelled at. You could have asked me in a proper way. The page is about myristic acid, not about isopropyl myristate. The link you provide is not conform wp:el, read my thoughts about external links in other discussions about that in my talkpage-archive, and read wp:el. On this specific case, it adds that the link is about isopropyl myristate, not about myristic acid, so the link is not even valid there (let alone not being a reliable source). If this info is to be added, please start a page on isopropyl myristate, using wp:rs. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition .. the external link does not even point to a property page about isopropyl myristate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuse reports

Re: [4] Contacting the administrators of persistent vandal IPs is coordinated through Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Femto 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Did not know that, will consider that next time. Got a bit frustrated at that moment. Too much. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen sulfide

Hi Dirk, I've replied to your comment on my talk page.

Cheers

Ben 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Another reply for you here.

Ben 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Hey, I agree with you, I just had a very hard time finding more reliable, non-commercial references. I will look some mmore soon. If you want, just yank those ones off untill a better reference can be found. Happy holidays to you as well :) Cavell 18:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference format for hypochlorous acid

I forgot to log in for one of those edits, so that might help explain some. I see your point about the names used for the reference tags. I agree, and admit I hadn't really thought about it that much. The numbers I've been using correlate with the numbers in my unpublished MS Thesis, and obviously doing it that way makes it easier for me to keep up with them. But it will really make it difficult to interpret later. I was thinking maybe I would just finish it up, and then used a find and replace to change them later. But I'm not sure what would be useful, and still compact. I was thinking maybe 1st four letters of the 1st author and the last two digits of the year.James.folsom 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

James, first a happy new year. The naming is OK with me, if you are working on the page it is not a problem, but indeed it would be nice if it would change into something more comprehendable, easier, later. A general way is first authors surname and the year, it does not have to be too compact. Keep up the good work! -Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm essentially done with that material, So I can begin to convert those to author name, instead of the numbers.James.folsom 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

salt/sodium

I am re-posting my external links on the salt and sodium page, which you removed. The pages on salt and sodium do not need to be limited to information on the chemical composition--the link provides readers with more information on salt/sodium, which is the purpose of Wikipedia. I came to these pages looking for information about salt and diet, and I found no information on the topic. I have posted this link in an effort to help others who are looking for information along the same lines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kfrohlinger (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

i will have a look at it. Just remember, Wikipedia is not a directory, and sodium is about the metal, not about sodiumchloride. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move debate opinions needed

Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, a happy new year to you. Secondlly, I think it is a great honour to see that one of the gods of thermodynamics is asking my opinion on the term 'free' in the energy names. As far as I know, Sadi died on a rather young age (illness?), I hope this (re)incarnation does not follow a similar fate ... I hope I can help a bit in this, though I am not a big hero in thermodynamics. I am very much inclined to concur with your opinion, I know these terms as Gibbs Free Energy and Helmholz Free Energy. I guess we are not thát strict about following IUPAC, we follow the name that the most people know, and when that gets close to 50-50, we follow IUPAC. As such, I would vote against renaming the articles. That said, the reason for the word 'free' in the terms, should be made very clear in these articles. Hope that you, as one of the founders of thermodynamics, are able to do that ;-). I'll have a look as well later. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, thanks for the opinion input. This will help solidify the consensus of the situation. Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm just irritated..I'm trying to avoid such things.--Alnokta 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies accepted (I'm not always free of abusive texts either, though not in summaries). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Any Reason For The Delink On Nicotine?

A response on my talk page would be great, thanks.100110100 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(responded on your talkpage) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Duloxetine, Fluoxetine, SSRI and SSRI discontinuation Syndrome

Hi. Saw your notes, I will sign up for an account. (once known as user: 67.82.232.151)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.232.151 (talk • contribs)

Nice, welcome! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Expand

I have always found that the expand tag is better for generating new content that the anti-social importance tag. These things are real chemical compounds, they all exist and have a use and someone could find them in any reference chemistry book. They are not the same as a garage band from the mid-west US. Please don't waste my time. --Peta 22:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uranium hazards

Thank you for your cleanup in Uranium#Hazards I note that it was reverted and ask that you please consider replacing your superior version. James S. 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

uric acid question

hi beetstra :) found your talk page. i posted a question to you in discussion on the uric acid page and you referred me here. here's the link you requested, when i was asking what the info and comment meant:

08:19, 9 January 2007 Beetstra (Talk | contribs) (RV to 99394796 (2007-01-08 20:40:14) by 24.141.95.140 using Popups - unexplained removal of data)

i don't know what any of that means, about RV to 99394796, or about using popups, or about unexplained removal of data (because i think that's my IP but i don't remember taking off any info, just re-organizing so that the TOC is nice and clear. what did you think was missing? is it just moved and you hadn't seen the new spot? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.95.140 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Ah, I see. Yes, it is your IP, let me explain all data in that line. RV is for revert. The big number is the page revision, every page that gets saved gets his own revision-number, the time is the time of that revision number, and you were the editor of that revision. Popups is the script that I am using to do the revert (see WP:POPUPS, it is a set of tools that allows certain easy access that is not standard on the wikipedia page. After that is a dash and then a small part of text that I add, telling why I did the revert, in this case, someone (not you) removed data without explanation, and I suspect that that was not meant to happen. I often type 'rvv', which is my shorthand for revert vandalism.

What happened is that someone after you edited uric acid, and was removing data and did not give an explanation (using e.g. the edit summary), this is what he/she did: link (on the left your version, revision 99394796, on the right the version after the two edits). I saw that, was not sure if that was a genuine edit, and decided to revert (again, your revision on the left, mine on the right; it may have been vandalism, but I am not a specialist in uric acid, and maybe in this case the person had a good reason, maybe it was duplicate or something, so in assuming good faith, I revert because of an unexplained deletion of data).

Hope this explains, and hope to see you around. Maybe you'd like to create an account? By the way, when posting on talk-pages, please sign with ~~~~, it will automagically create your signature, like this --> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

hey thanks dirk :) so, i'm not really suprised that somebody was wiping out MS information, it has happened to me before. whenever i put any information about nutrition and biochemistry on the MS page it gets wiped out within hours. i complained about it on my MS forum and i'm not the only person it's happened to. this other victim of deletion said he tried to contact the person who kept changing it, and this character replied "he knows best". i was tempted to just change it back to my version every day but i already e-procrastinate more than enough as it is!

anyway thanks for explaining the whole edit thing and yea i probably should get an account. i am proud of the uric acid page lol! ciao! 24.141.95.140 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

SF6

Goeie Jun Dirk Efkes wat in'e Memmetaal del sette... Ik heb enige tijd gewerk in de epoxy (zeer lastige materie), het gieten van isolatoren voor o.a. ABB. Nu was ik tot het filmpje van Steve Spangler in de volle overtuiging dat het SF6 giftig was. Met verbazing heb ik het filmpje gezien. De eisen die gesteld worden aan de Epoxy delen in de 6 bar overdruk SF6 hoogspannings-schakelaars is enorm. Het is dus alleen het bijproduct (S2F10) van een doorslag wat giftig kan zijn..... Valt het mij op of zijn er "errug" veel chemici actief op wiki ? mvg Bornestera 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Goeie Jun! It's good to see something in the memmetaal while being 'far' from home. The toxicity is indeed still a bit of a question to me, though I think it will not kill you instantly, fluorine compounds are in general not very good for a human body.

There are quite some chemists active here, you could have a look at the wikiprojects (linked on my userpage). We could use still more, though, there is a lot of work that still has to be done (and new work is generated daily). Hope you decide to stick around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bit lost...

Hi. I was wondering if you could help me. I'm trying to find a formula that will cite a source for things like videos and books but I can't find one. Do you know an easy one to use? If it helps, I am familiar with the URL formula that can be seen on the backyard wrestling article. Thanks. Normy132 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure if I understand what you mean. There are several cite-templates, {{cite}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, is a {{cite video}} what you mean? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Boron phosphide

Uh. Although I have no objections to your removal of either {{prod}} or {{importance}}; I would like to point out that it isn't only an "importance tag", but also a "notability tag". Not only does the template explicitly say "notability" (and then "importance" within parentheses), it places the article in Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance - just like {{notability}} does. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started the discussion again on the appropriate wikiproject. IMHO, people not involved in the project where a page is tagged under, should not be deciding on maintenance tags (sorry, nothing personal). These articles are all important (and the one I did remove does state why), they only don't state why they are important. There is some discussion on that, in my view: a non-notability tag is really a question if an article is non-notable, and importance tag is saying, that the article does not say why it is important (but it probably is), and hence that it may be non-notable. There is a significant difference in that.

I know there is a big backlog on the non-notability categories, but that means that there is still a lot of work to be done. Deleting articles is a solution, but then, who is to decide whether these articles are ripe for deletion, or that they should be worked on. That is why I say, that that decision should be made by the appropriate wikiproject, not by a person who wants to make the non-notability category smaller.

Well, most of them (I suppose you have seen the list of my prod nominations) would probably not survive an AfD, such as Immigration (CA) or Mack Dawg Productions. In the two cases contested so far, I see no reason to go to AfD, but most of the articles I've nominated I would bring to AfD if contested. I don't nominate articles for deletion because I want backlogs cleared, I nominate articles for deletion because they should be deleted. Very often, articles that ought to be deleted are found in the backlogs, but also elsewhere. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this is only a prod, which might set some people to work on these articles, but I don't think that it is a good plan. It is just that I am against deletion/proposed deletion by people who are not working in the field where that article is of interest. In general these articles are made by someone in the field who is encountering it in another article, and starts a stub in the hope it will grow, and someone else who sees that the article does not describe for what it is used tags it for importance (which can be done by anyone, that person apparently had an interest for that article). Then a third person comes along, and either prod's it, or deletes it, because it is tagged as non-notable, without knowing anything about the subject, or doing some research. (I am sorry, I don't mean this at all personal, it is just, every week/forthnight someone comes along and 'touches' maintenance tags on articles outside his/her own field, I would suggest, that that should be left to people within a certain project). I have made a suggestion on the non-notability wikiproject. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The alternative to me proposing deletions outside the scope of Politics of Sweden and Modernism ("my fields", I suppose...) would be letting Lakshmikanth and Primary teacher uk stay... for how long? Out of the many deletions I proposed, only four have been contested - three of them on compounds such as Boron phosphide. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletions are hardly contested, anyway, people don't see this, most people in chemistry don't even know that these articles exist (by the way, I feel like removing the tags on the others as well, I saw them, but I am waiting for input/discussion). About how long they should stay .. well .. until someone adds more info. If articles are notable, they should stay, deletion does not make the database smaller, the database is just as big with or without that article, so I see no reason to delete. At the moment there is a big non-notability category where no-one wants to plough through, if it is per discipline, people within the discipline might do it, because the categories are then smaller, and well, I am bored sometimes, and decide to suddenly improve an article. Also having that smaller, specific category makes the chance bigger people in a project actually put some of the articles on their watchlist, and the project can be activated to do something about it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethyleneglycol / ethylene glycol

DEar mr Beetstra,

The one thing I'd like to know is how could you move my (misguided, I was completely surprised already there was no page about it) page on Ethyleneglycol with such incredible speed? Chapeau! anyway, i may have misspelled the search for it, and started a new page. Cheers --Sikkema 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is .. I did not. Must have been someone else. By the way, there is nothing in the move-log, seems that someone made a redirect. See the history of ethyleneglycol and the history of ethylene glycol. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm thouroughly confused, there is also a message in my personal talk page, which is however, different, or did you leave two separate messages? Or actually it doesn't matter, I still learning how to use the full potential in Wiki. Cheers.--Sikkema 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, sorry to bother you again but is it acceptable to put in an industrial trade name, that is, however, very widely used, in dozens of physical chemistry articles? I'm talking about arkopal that didn't exist, but is of course closely related to the alkyl nonyl phenols. maybe a redirect is in order. (las trouwens dat je in nederland gepromoveerd bent, in delft neem ik aan? (katalyse etc) wellicht by isabel arends?) Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sikkema (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Re 1st question: On top of every page there is a history tab, there you can see who edited what and when.

Re remainder: Don't worry, you can bother me whenever you need. Within chemistry you see either the most-common name or the IUPAC name, other names are then redirects to that name. In the medicine field the INN name is used as prefered name for the article. But it is all a bit .. Fingerspitzengefüll (spelling?). We have already quite some articles (I guess some 5000 chemical compounds!), please have a good look around if the article you want to create does not already exist under one of the names, but that one redirect is missing. Why don't you have a look around on wikipedia:wikiProject chemistry and wikipedia:wikiproject chemicals (there are also manuals for naming compounds, there).

Als je iets verder had gelezen op mijn pagina, had je gezien dat ik bij Bart Hessen en Jan Teuben in Groningen ben gepromoveerd. Ik zit meer in het homogene katalyse/organische-/organometaalsynthese veld, niet in de technische kant ervan. See ya! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Copper sulfate herbicide

I am a member of a group that monitors a local mangrove forest. It was recently brought up that copper sulfate herbicide was being used to control algal growth at the periphery. Will this adversely effect the mangroves, or other plant and animal life? Are there better alternatives?

    Judylenr 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Len

Copper sulfate is a harmful compound: the Aldrich guide also has a little label stating "dangerous for the environment". So yes, it probably is harmful, not only to the algae, but also to other plant life. The reduction of algae growth is prehaps possible by reduction of fertilizer run-off present in the water, although this is of course dependent of local conditions. Alternative pesticides I wouldn't know. Also, is the reduction of algae really nessecary? Hope this helps! Sikkema 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(Has been answered on User talk:Judylenr). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: 1,4 dioxane

Hi there, I just caught myself citing within the article rather than referring to footnote references. Am just in the process of making the change. Let me know if you catch any other formatting errors and they'll be changed within the day.Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Breast Cancer Fund (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for reverting vandalism

I noticed that the Calcium article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium) was vandalized, and I was in the process of learning how to revert it, when you beat me to the punch. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesson No. 25 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your help on my templates question

Thanks for helping me out last weekend with the question about <ref> tags inside of templates. The answer you gave is that it can't be done because of wiki software limitations. I think that caveat ought to be included on the help:templates page as well (if it isn't already -- I couldn't find it). BTW using a template between the <ref> tags works just fine and provides a good alternative method for what I was trying to do. Karlhahn 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've been tossing around with the software for a long time, building in extra functionality. I'll have a look in properly hooking it into the parser, might be handy sometimes. Keep an eye on this page for some testcases. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dirk and please look at User Talk:Bill Owens Photography

Hi, Dirk: We haven't talked in quite some while. Please take a look at the comment I left on User Talk:Bill Owens Photography regarding that glossary he tried to add into the Distillation article. Regards, - mbeychok 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Milton. Indeed, it has been some time. I did revert that edit, indeed, copyvio and unencyclopedic. I have Bill Owens now on my watchlist for the moment, will see what he does. I have not been very active, yesterday only reverting some vandalism, and not notifying users. At first glance I would have judged this as a good faith edit, anyway. Strange edit, only edits of that account are to his (auto)biography and distillation, why distillation? But thanks for keeping an eye. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental problems with notability and consensus

Hello once more from Neuromath, whom you welcomed to Wikipedia. I have another occasion to ask for your advice on something, and this time it concerns far weightier matters than how to warn a vandal. I've recently been involved in three AfD's, and I raised as an issue certain confusions in WP:BIO, described at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Primary subject?. But my background investigations have turned up far graver problems. I'm starting to suspect that the guideline status of WP:BIO and all other notability guidelines is unjustified on grounds of lack of consensus, and even that there are fundamental problems with the very notion of consensus as used in Wikipedia decisionmaking.

I've found that WP:BIO was made an official guideline by Radiant! on 2005-05-18, with a blank edit summary and no corresponding message on the talk page (now archived). At that time, there had been only a few brief entries to the talk page more recent than one year prior to Radiant!'s action, one of which stated explicitly that "this page has no consensus in the first place" (emphasis in the original). Shortly thereafter, the page was demoted to "proposed guideline" status by Beland on 2005-06-01, in part because "I'm not sure it (WP:BIO) really got all that much attention". No response was made to Beland's message on the talk page; instead, Radiant! chose to restore guideline status on 2005-06-13, with the edit summary "Guideline - widely in use", and no commentary on the talk page.

What kind of consensus process is this? Am I missing something—for example, did more discussion take place somewhere else, say at the Village Pump, or an RfC, or a project page? Or if this really is all there was to it, how can anyone say that WP:BIO is supported by consensus? I'm almost ready to put a {{disputedtag}} on WP:BIO—and it wouldn't be the first time that's been done, as I've also discovered by looking through the talk page archives. I've also just learned that the Inclusionists typically regard all the notability guidelines as lacking consensus. —Neuromath 12:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, now you are hitting me with a subject where I have never been involved in. I am a bit busy at the moment, but I'll try and jot an answer.

I have looked through the pages and the archives, and though there are people adding comments on the article being disputed, I don't see much response to it (neither for nor against). For a dispute one needs a hot discussion, so when there is hardly any discussion, propositions and disputed tags can be removed after some days, apparently it is then not disputed, and noone is against a proposal. I see from the discussions this is a very difficult subject, and it is difficult to look onto it without making a choice. Guidelines are more loose than policies, I guess there is where it is at. Guidelines give you a way of thought, policies tell you what to do and not to do. In that regard, can a guideline be really disputed, it is no law?

I'll try and give this a bit more thought. You could try and start another discussion on the talk-page, but that has been done already quite some times, and there is no real conclusion coming out of most of them. I do think that Radiant! could have given a message in the edit summary and on the talkpage, but most of these being quite long ago, it is not really useful to ask for his thoughts then. Discussions on this subject are certainly going to attract a lot of people of both fields. Hope this helps for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at these problems and giving me your thoughtful comments. I agree entirely that "this is a very difficult subject, and it is difficult to look onto it without making a choice"—it is polarizing, and I am rapidly becoming polarized (as an inclusionist) from looking into it. According to discussion at m:Talk:Inclusionism#Wikipedia Notability Guideline finally under fire, the basic Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) guideline has a problematic history similar to what I have described for WP:BIO, although I have not yet verified this for myself.

As to guidelines being "no law", I would like to take that position as regards the notability guidelines at least, but I don't think it's a real option; admins enforce them as if they were full-fledged policies. In fact, the admin who closed the Melissa Skirboll AfD with deletion cited WP:INN, which is just an essay and not even a guideline, as if it were authoritative. The inclusionists say that much the same was often done with WP:N before Radiant! made it a guideline. (I'm happy to say that the Daniel Avila AfD and Curtis Warren AfD closed without deletion, and the articles Daniel Avila and Curtis Warren are still there.) And the overview document WP:POL doesn't really draw much of a distinction between guidelines and policies.

The problem with consensus on guidelines (and policies) is this: suppose you have a non-authoritative essay on a polarizing issue like this one. Someone changes it to a guideline at a time when few people are paying attention. Then every newbie who comes into Wikipedia and looks at it sees the banner at the top of the page with the big green check-mark and the stern warning about the need to achieve consensus before making any changes; they assume (as I did at first!) that it must be as well-founded as WP:NPOV. Once attention is focused on it, and its polarizing nature predictably divides Wikipedia into factions, the faction that favors the polarizing guideline points out that consensus must be achieved before changing it, and of course once polarization has occurred that will never happen. Yet how can it be legitimate to demand consensus for changing the guideline, or demoting it back to the status of an essay, when no consensus for making it a guideline ever existed in the first place? For these reasons, the history does seem relevant to me, no matter how long ago it was.

Wikipedia:Consensus says that "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process." That may work well for articles, where anyone can make changes at any time, but I do not see how it can be legitimate for guidelines and policies bearing the check-mark banner, where consensus for changes is demanded in advance and the price of bold editing or ignoring all rules may be paid in blocks and bans; under those circumstances, there will be a strong bias toward accepting the status quo, however questionable its origins. This is why I find the whole Wikipedian notion of consensus itself problematic, and not just the notability guidelines. Incidentally, there is a lively discussion going on right now in Wikipedia talk:Consensus; I haven't read all of it yet, and it isn't clear to me whether the issues I've just raised are being faced.

I realize these are very deep questions, and like you, I'm busy right now; I've already let these questions take more time from my off-wiki life than was wise! I will look forward to your further thoughts when you have them, which need not be soon. I'm also hoping for purely procedural advice, like what venue to pursue and how to stay out of trouble with guidelines like Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Multiposting. I wonder, should I make a project page, or an essay in my own user space, or both? Or just post to the appropriate talk page(s), or the Village Pump? —Neuromath 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fullerene

Thanks for picking up all the vandalism on Fullerene. I thought I got them all. What the hell is going on today with the vandals? MetsFan76 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Think you missed only one, I reverted the whole lot, now all is clear. Thanks for helping, anyway. I have no clue, it was quite OK up till half an hour ago. Maybe the afternoon school sessions in the USA have started? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the USA and classes got out about an hour or two ago so I guess the kids are playing around lol. MetsFan76 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Guessed that a MetsFan would be in the states. But you never know. Maybe it is snowing and they are all behind their PC's at home? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually we have hardly had any snow so far. I'm in NY and its been dry as a bone. The Midwest has been getting hit hard. MetsFan76 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm .. in that case, I have no clue. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance

I am sorry, I am reinstating all the importance tags again. They may be notable, but the article does not state that information. Removing a tag does not remove the backlog, it withdraws it only from attention. Please see discussion on the wikiproject notability. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, okay. I thought you yourself (perhaps it was someone else then) said they were inherently notable, so I thought I'd remove the tags. But very well, you're the man. I didn't remove that many tags, since I excepted someone to interrupt me... just didn't think it'd be you. ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Sorry about that... I will add edit summaries in the future.

Thanks,

PulsHrd 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. It sometimes does not really matter, but in this case the data is already hard to verify, the list may already be contaminated, so any kind of reason why they must be added would really help. Happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

another methamphetamine defender???

that entire paragraph is thoroughly backed up by mainstream scientific references...it is all factual and all referenced with a brief outline of the various aspects of methamphetamine toxicity...i havnt much looked yet at ur contribs...yet my first glance tells me u just arent some meth & amphetamine obsessive like konradG...so i take ur opinion a little more seriously...yet before u just remove a thoroughly referenced section u indeed should take it to the talk page...and explain which sentences are illogical...if there are some illogical sentences id want them cleaned up...anyways...im reverting that paragraph until u explain urself better on the talk page...then ill address ur concerns and revamp any illogical sentences...i somewhat regret getting into the middle of the meth page these last few days...i see its going to be defended aggressively by pro-meth people...so im getting out of it i think...its a waste of my time...yet go ahead and address ur specific concerns as yall baby that page up and take out all refernces to its harms...instead yall have the intro, of the drug of most concern in many places, basically just acknowledging its used medically...before i added in that its medical use is in very small quantities and recommended for very short time periods it was really a pathetic intro to that page...Benjiwolf 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

hi there! yes..i just added that sentence about reproduction recently and didnt spend much time on it...and i actually put it in as a "gift" to the more pro-meth editors of this page so theyd stop harassing me and the info & links i put in showing its damaging effects...(as meth shows little harm to fetuses)...im not really editing that page much more i think...yet anyways i suppose it would be good to have broken that sentence up some...but reproduction i do think can refer to many varied things...an effect on reproduction can mean an effect on courtship, sex & mating, the fetus, or child development...ie...(a problem at any stage negatively impacts a species reproduction)...its just a technical point...yet that is how i think of that...perhaps u think differently...as to "weasel words" i have to look that up...i changed the wording in some of those sentences to appease the meth defenders...i used to say "its considered dangerous" then conceded and put "many consider it dangerous"...i think there is enough evidence from many scientific and medical sources to say the previous more strongly worded version...yet i think ive given up trying to put in links to scientific studies that show negative effects from meth...theyve just been erased...its someone elses job now...theres plenty of pages out there without lobbies...Benjiwolf 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that I was against this paragraph (but I am also not saying I am pro). You were the person who originally added that piece of information and it has since been heavily disputed, though only (mainly?) by one editor. Besides that dispute there are textual concerns on that paragraph as well. So from that point of view, the text has been removed, and I will keep on removing it until the dispute has been settled. Forcefully readding is not going to help you getting your point (I know that is a push-argument). Please rewrite the paragraph (as a hint: have a look at wp:mos, wp:rs, wp:cite and others, I'm not in the field of this, just a 'plain' chemist, so I can't help you with the contents, only giving you this hint to help you make your point). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! No, i saw ur comments before and understood why u removed it...yet as i just said...im done with that page...someone else can rewrite that paragraph if they want...im not interested anymore...there are plenty of other things on wikipedia im interested in editing...i am trying to avoid editing pages that just by their nature are contentious and subject to constant heavy editing by many users...have a good one!!...ha det!!!...Benjiwolf 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Street Names

I understand where you are coming from. I have no actual proof that those are legitimate street names, but I have a case to argue. I feel that no citation should be needed for the addition of street names, and I say this because it varies. Street names vary from culture to culture, of which I am sure you are aware of. I feel that in order to provide the most accurate information about this topic there needs to be a diverse culture of editors. I hope that makes sense. Wikipedia is supposed to provide the most accurate information possible, and I am just trying to add to it. By adding certain slang names, it opens up people’s knowledge. Being a user myself, I feel that my information is VERY accurate, seeing as how I would use the terms on a daily basis. Sure there is no citation, but there is an addict that lived the lifestyle. That should be a citation enough. I hope you now understand where I am coming from.

Maybe you could help me find a good spot for the information.

Thanks, PulsHrd 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If it is a used streetname, there simply are references for it. I am sorry, but information is not accurate because the person that adds it says so, accuracy should be measured by reliable sources.

That street names vary from culture to culture indeed is known, and I am not saying that we should not have streetnames in articles, they indeed are a welcome addition. The thing is only, what if I am a vandal, and I want to add the streetname 'mobile' to the list of MDMA-streetnames (I could add a whole list of common objects that people carry around when being in the street, and I have seen that happening) .. from your point of view, you would not contest that. Now seen the seriousness that you have in editing the article, and since you have taken the effort to open a wikipedia account, I don't think you are a vandal, but still the same principle would apply. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Expert requests

Hey there, you'll see that the category for expert requests in the field of chemistry is over at Category:Pages needing expert attention from Chemistry experts. I've updated the {{expert-subject}} template to ignore the capitalization of the first letter in the subject parameter so that it accepts both "chemistry" and "Chemistry". Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Answered on user talk:BradBeattie (though a bit late, sorry). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Point for Discussion

The mention in your article regarding the gas vapour density effect on its behaviour is correct if it relates to pure H2S which is not very common. At the low concentrations normally associated with this gas the characteristics of the carrying fluid (liquid or gas) have the greater influence.

10,000ppm = 1% i.e. 99% of something else.

It is found in low lying areas when it is associated with a liquid. The main influences in the hydrocarbon and Petrochem industries on the gas behaviour is the velocity of any pressurised leak of the carrying gas (e.g. methane) and wind speed and direction. A pressurised leak also causes turbulence resulting in a mixing of the gas with the atmosphere producing further dilution often resulting in a gas air mixture with a vapour density close to that of air.

However it is still possible to see procedures advising people to gain height during an H2S emergency which would be tragic if they were above a leak with an upward velocity or they ran down-wind towards higher ground.

--90.240.197.87 11:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Bob Fitzpatrick bob@optimaepc.fsnet.co.uk

I answered on talk:hydrogen sulfide. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for reverting the silly vandalism on my user page. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome! Any clue why this person is .. not happy with you? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lately I've been doing alot of speedy deletions and blocking of vandals. Vandalizing my user pages is a vain attempt to get some kind of retribution, I guess. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You must watch my pages more closely than me!  :) --Ed (Edgar181) 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It only means that I am spending too much time behind wikipedia, instead of doing something serious. And those red numbers are very handy. I guess I will be getting my portion of abuse as well, removing external links. Seems to make some people really unhappy (vide infra). See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHEMS tagging

Hi Beetstra: I would suggest you either request that a bot do the tagging at Wikipedia:Bot requests or you request bot access for that. You're wasting time and clogging up recent changes approving each edit manually :-) —Mets501 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, partially. There are things here that I have to do manually, since AWB is not always compatible with all I want it to do. I guess I'd better get a regular bot .. :-/ --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, bottask?

I see you are running a bot, would metsbot be capable and willing of doing this for me?

• From a certain list of articles, change {{chemistry}} into {{chemicals}}, including an empty class and importance parameter
• 'Steal' the class from other tags and put it as a parameter in {{chemicals}}
• Warn me somewhere when there are different classes used in the templates

Thanks already! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I should already say .. the list is not really perfect .. almost, maybe. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, MetsBot used to do such tasks, until I got so many complains I stopped :-). Many other bots perform these tasks, though, and you'll have good luck connecting to one at Wikipedia:Bot requests, which many bot owners have watchlisted. —Mets501 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

DME

Thanks for your tidying up of the dimethyl ether page. I only recently started editing in Wiki so my apologies for doing the editing a bit messy. Lkleinjans 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I am following your efforts with interest. I'll do some tidying up every now and then. The only thing that 'worries' me a bit is that some of the sources you use might not comply with wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. If you could find independent sources, that would be great. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam site removals

Hi Beetstra,

Thanks for your work in removing linkspam from Wikipedia. However, I've replaced the link you removed on Shixinggia here, as the link is to the professional blog of noted vertebrate paleontologist Darren Naish and directly relates to the article in question, in the sense that he is discussing the new oviraptorosaur panoply while Shixinggia is a new oviraptorosaurid in the panoply. Naish discusses Shixinggia in the article, and those who wanted to find out more about this enigmatic animal might well want to learn more about Shixinggia, so this link doesn't appear to qualify as linkspam. Just an explanation of why I have reverted this particular edit. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)"

Did you read wp:rs? A blogspot as a reliable source? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read WP:RS, which is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The professional blog of a well-known paleontologist who discusses the subject, with references on the page, certainly seems to qualify for this exception. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess the references used in the blog would be given a higher value than the blog itself (which feel like original research to me, and I can't see how it would add to the page more than the references already given), but well, I will not remove them again. Thanks for the explanation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your consideration. I agree of course with the guideline that blogs cannot generally be considered reliable sources, but I feel there are exceptions to every rule (or in this case, guideline). Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Darren Naish

I noticed you removed several links to posts from Darren Naish's blog entries. I believe that this is unnecessary, as he is an established vertebrate paleontologist. He is not advertising anything, and his entries are not shallow; they are certainly more informative than either the online Dinosaur Encyclopaedia or my own website, both of which are often included as external links on dinosaur entries here. They also have numerous references. I appreciate your fervor and effort, but believe in this case that it was misdirected. J. Spencer 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read wp:rs? A blogspot as a reliable source? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Naish's entries fit every single qualification listed under Non-scholarly sources, as they apply in dinosaur paleontology. J. Spencer 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've answered in the above entry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and have a good day! J. Spencer 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision......not happy!

We ARE entering our song for Eurovision

It will be a song made up with lyrics from the people...so it will be a song FOR the people.

So please...change it back...because we are entering! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.242.150.140 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

so? we are still entering our song to be chosen for the UK!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.150.140 (talk • contribs) }

I was not contesting that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please put us back up though...without a link because we are entering a song into it...so we want some recognition and support on the go!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.92.55 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I am not going to put it back. You can, if you put it there in the style of the document and WP:MOS, providing a reliable source to show that you actually are going to enter. Note, blogs are not a reliable source, you'll need something better than that! Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

QW RS?

There is only a few dubious sources heavily discussed on the Quackwatch talk page that infer that Quackwatch is not a RS. Quoting a non-RS source that states that something else is "not RS" is a tautology. So either it is just because of WP:EL (which I found odd, given the hysteria over Thiomersal in general) or not. RS has little to do with it (IMO). However in saying that, there needs to be a far bit of link pruning BUT since the scientific evidence (ie/ RS) overwhelms the scaremongering (ie/ not-RS), the ELs should reflect this. Shot info 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL relies on WP:RS for some points (links to avoid, point two). I judged Quackwatch by the page, not by another not-RS. Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed, and hence not a RS. Indeed, there are too many links there anyway, but it would need time to sort them all out, someone would have to check them all. Still, that does not mean this one should be added, and, well, sorry, I was around now. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please point us to the requirement for external links to be peer reviewed. -- Fyslee 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, my mistake again, I mix up terms. I mean, it has to be verifyable. Which is something different. Sorry.

General, please try and incorporate the information into the article itself, and use references to back up the information. External links should be kept to a minimum etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. As far as verifiablity and notability, Quackwatch is certainly verifiable and notable. A search for Quackwatch will quickly reveal that it is universally despised by promoters of products and methods that are not mainstream (IOW alternative medicine, most of whom are likely quite innocent of any crimes), as well as various scammers and and con artists, and it is very commonly used and linked to in a favorable manner by libraries, universities, government agencies, consumer agencies, scientists, physicians, etc..

• Alexa's page is interesting. You will notice the negative reviews consisting of ad hominem and straw man attacks, untruths, and obviously libelous statements say more about the writers than about Quackwatch. (They are named here.) The listed categories (at the bottom) of all search engines always list it.

• One of the biggest sources (and promoters) of dubious health information and products on the internet expressly censors it.[5] Look at the "Support Forums" comment.

• One can also search the NIH.gov site.

• Here's a typical Best of the Web Award Review. Such positive awards and reviews are myriad... [6] [7]

• "Best of the Web"'s listings.

• If it Quacks Like a Duck

• The site is mirrored in several different languages.

So its notability is not in question: either one is for it or against it. Anyone who knows anything about consumer protection and alternative medicine (from either POV) is aware of Quackwatch. One could say it parts the waters in debates on such subjects. It is either notable or notorious, depending on one's POV....;-) That's why there is a very strong movement here at Wikipedia to delete it, and obviously there are also attempts to counteract such actions. Unfortunately scientists and physicians are usually hard at work at real jobs, while just about anyone can edit Wikipedia.

The question of using articles from it as W:RSources is, as I have previously explained, a matter for case-by-case evaluation. Sometimes "yes", sometimes "no". -- Fyslee 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Indeed, to use it as a reference has to be judged case by case. It depends strongly on how the sentence that is using this site as a source is written. This source (and many others) are secondary sources of information, in many cases the references used are a better source than the article itself. The problem is, anyone can write a page with complete rubbish, backed up by many references, that does not make that page reliable. Though there are of course many pages that are reliable information, but you need reliable, 3rd party sources to again back that up.

Still, I don't believe that such links should be in the external links section of the page (even when third parties back it up, it then deserves being used as a reference), that does not give a clear and good description of the POV of the EL. And the pure fact that a reliable source exists does not mean it has to be used as an EL (also covered in the EL-guideline). Links invite more links to be added, the level slowly going down. Hope this clarifies my point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So rather than the list of excuses you used to justify your deletion, there is only one reason why you don't want it there and that's because you prefer the number of ELs be reduced. I agree with you on this point but I disagree with your wikilawyering to justify it. It only invites editors to point out the errors in the logic. Note that you should be using some more RS and V to check through the other ELs on the list. You will find QW is a bit more RS than some of the hysterical sites out there... Shot info 06:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave QW alone. But thanks for pointing out that this is a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

I started a new and improved List of articles related to scientific skepticism. Now, I am afraid there may be a few editors that want to continue to make unproductive comments. There is serious problems with conflict of interest with a few editors that do not like the scientific list I created. If you have any suggestions that would be helpful. Thanks, --QuackGuru 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me a link to the page? In general, when there are such problems, make sure the data is backed up by reliable sources, and keeps a good neutral point-of-view. For severe cases, you could request for a comment (RfC). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I created a new article named: List of criticisms about alternative medicine. Please help and monitor this stub. It deserves a chance to be a good article. The other article I created is already gone. I hope I can at least save this one. Thanks, --QuackGuru 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles are gone. Now, today I added an article to a List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts and I was reverted. I cited 3 references and discussed it on the talk page. I fixed all the references in the article too and that was also reverted. Feel free to take a look at my edits to the article. I believe I was doing normal editing and another editor falsely accused me of being disruptive. Thanks, QuackGuru 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you are up against an established editor. I guess it is better if you keep low profile, and play their game. I know it is not how it should be (I see he ignores all your questions on his talkpage), but if a straight approach does not work ... Just start a topic on the talkpage for every subject you want to change, explain the case, provide the references. See how they react, and be patient with them. The list is controversial, and that indeed means that things have to be discussed before a change is applied. Hope that helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Update. I have commented on the talk page to save the list before it is essentially erased. The desires of a certain editor have been revealed. I hope you can vote before there is not much left of the article anymore. Thanks, --QuackGuru 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sildenafil external link

Hi Dirk,

I have some comments/questions regarding this external link on the sildenafil page, which was deleted, and I restored, and you deleted again.

http://www.usrf.org/breakingnews/bn_111202_viagra/bn_111202_viagra.html

I'm all for keeping Wikipedia clean, beautiful, and free from debris, and I try to do my part by picking off linkspam and other bad stuff when I see it. And I can appreciate the need to keep a tight rein on external links, especially on a page vulnerable to spammers and commercial exploitation. But I disagree that this particular link contributes to the "linkfarm" factor, and I think it does provide worthwhile and credible information for what it is. I imagine some others agree, since that link has been there for years, and given the level of scrutiny this page receives, I doubt it would have survived if it were without merit. Of course, longevity doesn't necessarily mean anything in itself, so let me explain my view and my reasoning in restoring the link.

The content (debunking common misconceptions about the drug, first-hand subjective experiences of users) isn't found in the sildenafil article or in any of the other external link sources, and it's relevant, useful, non-trivial, and presented in an accessible manner. This is significant, especially considering that many of the people who come to the sildenafil page will be researching the drug because they intend to use it themselves. The drug factsheet or even the official drug site doesn't address these topics or provide this information. These are relevant details, but obviously not suitable for the article text, so including an external link that addresses them makes sense.

As far as it being a reliable or authorative source on the topic, granted, the Wall Street Journal health column wouldn't be considered a scientific or medical authority (and Howstuffworks.com is?). But it's not making that claim, and in this case, I think a more liberal definition of "reliable" or verifiable is justified. The focus of the piece is on users' concerns and experiences, not the hard (pardon the pun) science. And in that context, I think WSJ and the sources they cite can be considered credible and accurate. Plus, the link is from the website of a urological organization, so it's passed some professional/medical scrutiny.

I think it's worthwhile to judiciously include some non-scholarly sources in external links for otherwise scientific or medical articles, if the links address relevant issues and augment existing links. With all due respect, I don't understand how this particular link is in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. If you still have objections to my restoring the link, I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on how you see the guidelines applying here and why this sort of link should not be included, or point out what it is that I'm not getting.

Thanks, Galen GBarnett 08:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it is nice to see a good explanation why one would like to include an external link (with this discussion on the talkpage, I might even have left it there). Might have.

WP:EL addresses WP:RS, external links should be reliable sources. For as far sildenafil is concerned, that page is always problematic with external links, generally, when there are external links, more get added, and when the links get to the 'loose end', that standard drops and drops. I do believe we should draw a line (and when there are more below that line, these should simply go). Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, external links should be kept to a minimum, etc. etc. (WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:OR, WP:RS).

I'd suggest, write a paragraph with a similar explanation, using the data in the article (cite it properly). Back it up with more reliable sources. Hope this helps. And again, thanks for the explanation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the warning about ceasium, but it was not me, although it was my fault. I had forgotten to log off while on a school computer.then, someone else did that edit. once again, thank you, and i will from now on remember to log off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pendragonneo (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

OK, don't worry about it, this is a first-level 'warning', more a 'reminder in good faith' .. things will be forgotten in no time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

5-HTP

I have personally experienced nightmares taking 5-HTP. I came across the 5-HTP page by Dr. Sahelian who has written a book on this topic and he happens to clearly mention that a side effect of 5-HTP is vivid dreams and nightmares. Perhaps you should try the 5-HTP yourself and see that you will have vivid dreams the first night you take it. In my opinion people reading the 5-HTP page on wikipedia should be aware of this side effect and it is a disservice to the readers not to have this information. Topanga—Preceding unsigned comment added by Topangagemini (talk • contribs)

That part is fine with me, but there are more primary sources to back that up, and the way you wrote the first additions was not the way to write that down. This is better, though still not perfect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good links are worthy

And you didn't a very good job on Parthenolide. Not at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbuAmir (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. Let me explain, I mainly wikified the article, I applied wp:el (commercial links go anyway, the other one may be OK, though I could judge that one against WP:OR). The text on the plant is .. about the plant, not about the chemical compound. I confess, I removed one sentence to much there, sorry about that. I'll have a look later. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry Star

		The Chemistry Star
		Dirk, this is just my way of saying thanks for all the hard work you've put in whipping the chemistry/chemical wikipages into shape. Keep leading from the front! -- Quantockgoblin 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow, cool star! I'll try and keep up the standards! Thanks again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

changes reverted

I was trying to fix an error in the refrences section of the kevlar article. However, I guess a bot of yours deleted my changes. I can understand this, because I unsuccessfully tried to fix the error in the refrence section by adding new websites. I do not really mind that you got rid of this, however I just want to make sure you do not think I was attempting to vandalize this or anything. All I was trying to do is be helpful. Thank you --Robin63 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Err .. I already issued a warning to you, though it looked a bit strange seeing your other edits. But I have put a line through the warningmessage, and answered on your talkpage. Sorry for that. And it was even me who made the error in the first place (stupid typo, and I should know how the thing works ...). Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

drawing and searching chemical structures

Salut, I am glad to see your comments regarding searching chemical structures in Wiki's, I have had several comments on other forums about adding this type of functionality. Not sure if you know about ChemAxon's Marvin editor/viewer or the JChem Base chemical search technology but I believe that it is the most powerful and web ready technology currently available and this can be provided freely (under our FreeWeb Package) if you think this would be suitable. Examples back from the industry suggest that as a Java Applet rather than a plugin technology we do 'get under' usual 'administrator only' install issues and we are relevant for all operating systems. To have a look at examples please visit this implementation of MarvinSketch and this example of us as both editor and search engine at the RCSB Protein Data Bank. Do let me know if this is interesting and I can forward keys. Cheers and good work. aa_at_chemaxon_._com—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Allardyce (talk • contribs)

Salut,

I had a quick look, but I could not download (yet, probably, account seemed not to be active, I'll try again later). Let me say, it looks quite nifty, does this work on *nix type systems (and then I mean, can I create documents in a text-editor, and incorporate these images, and if I give that document to someone else can they then still see the images? Would this work for documents that one sends for official publications (ACS, RSC, Wiley ..)? But those questions are besides the point here.

Basically, I do like the possibility to incorporate chemical drawings in wikipedia, but I don't think that it is an application that is going to be accepted by the programmers of the mediawiki-software. I am trying to get a wikipedia based search engine to run (a special:chemicalsources, working like special:booksources), and they already think that that is too specific, to specialistic. That does not mean, that such functionality should not be written (I have written the specialpage), an extension to the software might be very good for chemistry specific wikipedia. The way to go would be to write the extension, find a way to store the data in the wikipedia database, and to upload a patch to bugzilla. From that moment you will have to nag developers to incorporate you patch in svn (step 1), and after that try and see if the main developers (Brion and Tim) are willing to enable it on wikipedia (I don't know if you have a big chance there). At that point the software is available to other users, and people running their own wiki (like me), or chemistry wiki's can choose to activate the extension, and use the software. I guess you will have to start here

You could leave this message also at wikipedia:wikiproject Chemicals or wikipedia:wikiproject Chemistry and see how they respond. I guess there will be more that like that idea.

I saw that you created some documents on chemaxon. As a person working for a company, you have to be careful with that, wikipedia strictly adheres to WP:NPOV, and all the other policies and guidelines. I don't know what the text was in the document, but either the document should not tell anything, and you should rely on others to expand (which may take quite some time, and until that, people might delete for lack of notability). Another option is to put the page on a request-list (there is a link when you go to a non-existent page. Hope this helps. Now I am wondering if I should end this message with 'Pa'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

wikify article

Would nr nice if you helped me wikify the article on the group The Attic thanx/matrix17—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrix17 (talk • contribs)

I could have a look, if you could give me a wikilink. I am a bit busy, though, since I am in the middle of a template-rebuild, but I can always give some quick examples or some hints, and you can then do the rest. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chembox/pubchem

I would like to thank you for all of your infobox work. However, after your latest edits, the PubChem field no longer appears (see 2,3-Bisphosphoglycerate for an example.) --Arcadian 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Evil curly bracket pixie .. had moved them all around (read: I did something wrong). Thanks for pointing this out to me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That was very quick -- thanks! --Arcadian 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Please let me know if I borked more things, I have been tampering with so much, that there may have things gone missing. Testing is also welcome. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your recent change of CAS registry number source from NLM/MeSH to NIST - how comprehensive is the NIST database? I just checked 2,3-Bisphosphoglycerate after the change, and it now doesn't recognize the code. We had a similar discussion last year over at Template:Drugbox, and NLM/MeSH seemed at the time to have the most codes and fastest response. Of course, that would have be weighed against the fact the data provided at NLM/MeSH is more limited than that provided by other sources. --Arcadian 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a dilemma there .. I wanted a more chemical database in there as well, as opposed to all the medical databases (PubChem, MeSH, ChEBI, KEGG, etc. etc.) .. maybe eMolecules is better? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We could try it. What's the URL? --Arcadian 00:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is already built in :-). err .. http://www.emolecules.com (see {{chembox CASNo}}). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new

Right, sorry! I though it might break the syntax if I left empty fields in. Congrats on your work on the template by the way. I also have one question, if you don't mind answering it:

• I don't suppose there's a way for the template to use the "simplified" molecular formula fields, as in {{Drugbox}} (which format subscripts, color elements and link to element pages)—I think that's a template itself, but I'm not sure.

Thanks in advance. If the template's good to go, I'll start adding it to compound pages without a chembox :) Fvasconcellos 01:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The old template broke with empty fields, indeed (well, broke, you saw empty sub-boxes). Things have now been designed in such a way that everything is invisible, except when it has data. So you can use it if you want, already. {{Chembox new}} contains a bit of a manual, maybe that helps. If you really see something missing, just poke me.

I saw that part of the drugbox, I have not given that much of a look. I think it must be possible to do the same here (if I want all chemboxes to be replaced by the {{chembox new}}, I think I will have to look into that as well). Although, for a chembox that would mean ALL elements .. hmm. And I personally hate the element colourings there. I see that drugbox does a lot of categorisation as well, so there is also work there to be done!

I am busy 'stealing' as many fields as I can get. Not all that the {{chembox new}} can handle is shown, I try to use only the optimal fields, where I can get most out of the parameters (e.g. I prefer 'ATCCode_prefix' and 'ATCCode_suffix', though it does understand 'ATCCode' as well). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 01:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes... most pharmaceuticals are composed of a limited range of elements, I hadn't thought of all elements being needed here. The element colors don't seem very popular, but they are quite a useful visual aid when the drugbox has a ball-and-stick or space-filling model. Say, you're not thinking of replacing Drugbox with Chembox new, are you? I've grown quite attached to it :D Thanks for the help. Fvasconcellos 13:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It would give some interesting possibilities when doing that (counting per element), and I am thinking about the possibility, but I have to get to it (it is possible to calculate the molecular weight automagically when providing the separate elements!). It does almost all the things that the other common boxes do, so I guess I am getting there. There are still some 'hidden features' to be programmed, and maybe this falls under that (give them formula to fill in, but for the selected few, have C, H, N fields ready which overrule the other fields, the former is needed anyway in some cases, non-stoichiometric compounds e.g.)

About replacing .. well, actually, yes .. I am thinking about that, kill all boxes and replace them with one standard box, all the same all through the wikipedia. People know what to expect, people know where to find the data. I know that for some chemicals they can be connected to one specific field, but others ..? But we'll have to discuss this, I hope some people give their point of view after my post on the chemistry wikiproject. The old boxes are still there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

again commercial links on chemical pages

It was discussed again and again. It was said some links might be permissible. see Mdwyer 05:50, 9 September 2006

---

• Mdwyer, I did not remove the links, that was DrBird/71.245.157.18. There are problems with external links, there have been extensive discussions on that. A solution that is underway (though I still need a Wikipedia-programmer), would be a page like special:booksources, which would load Wikipedia:Chemical sources. For now, there is the template {{ChemicalSources}}, which enables to remove commercial links, but I do not remove links which directly link to the compounds property pages (I do remove links to companies homepages or similar, non-specific pages). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I knew you weren't removing them. I was actually replying to DrBird, and I hijacked your page for a discussion. Sorry about that. In any case, I'm not familiar enough with the guts of the code to do more than just keep manually reverting things when I find them. The link DrBird keeps adding doesn't look like it fits WP:EL. The Fermentek ones seem valid to me. In other cases where I'm not sure, I will often move them with a note in the talk pages so someone can put them back if they think they are valid. --Mdwyer 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• DrBird is adding links to his own site, these do not comply WP:EL, moreover, these links did not link to the chemical property page, but to a general page. Links to chemical property sheets on commercial websites are not necessarily wrong, they give extra info, which is still necessary on many chemical pages. I see DrBird is still pushing, I will revert all his edits when he only adds or removes links in the 'external links' section (but I am going on holiday). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Now I see you have launched a crusade against all of them. You contradict your own expressed opinion. Maybe reconsider?

In any case I will go on mentioning and linking to the pages that the data have been copied from (on permission of course). It is a matter of honesty. Please visit here: [8]

Now also consider that: You might have noticed Fermentek does not offer its products to individuals, nor does it publish or compare prices.

In any case, I think you will not object to linking to corresponding MSDS pages from wiki chemical articles.

AbuAmir 14:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My support goes stronger and stronger towards removing all commercial links from chemical pages, there are many, non commercial sites available. The template {{ChemicalSources}} is available, and requests for enabling a special:chemicalsources has been made, and I have asked several times for support of that. Note that the terms that are used are 'might', 'not necessarily wrong' .. I know that Fermentek is not offering to individuals, but there are many chemists using the site, and for them this can still be explained as advertisement. Please consider WP:EL in that light. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure, some of the MSDS's are also available from non-commercial sources, maybe these are a better EL? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Another sentence to reply to, it is indeed honest to mention the pages where you found the data, that is even very good, but in that case they should be mentioned as references, preferably using the WP:CITE mechanisms available. Just as a sidenote, many of the compounds would really benefit from a chembox or a drugbox (both provide the same functionality), these also link directly into the online databases (PubChem, CAS, MeSH, KEGG, ChEBI, eMolecules, etc.), where, probably (and for some I am sure because I did check whether the information was available non-commercial), more information can be found. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I spelled aluminum right.

How was I wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.96.71 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Consensus was reached to use the IUPAC spelling 'aluminium', so aluminum was not right. See the spelling section, and the talkpage of aluminium. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I understand what you are talking about with the tags on the chemical Pages. To remove the tag the page must be expanded and made to show a noteworthy amount of information, I will look over all the pages in the "to Do Section" and try and find some that I am excited about working on and "wiki" them! Thanks for getting me pointed in the right direction! any other ways I can help let me know! Max 20:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I am sorry if I sounded a bit cynical, but this is about the 5th time (may be an understatement) that someone unilaterally removes tags, I have tried to discuss this on the talkpage of the wikiproject notability, but that has not evolved a lot lately. I am overlooking all these articles, and we have improved quite some lately, though there are still many left. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to self

Check for all fields in {{chembox new}}: Cadmium_oxide / Fluoroform and solve that NFPA --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)