User talk:Wickey-nl/Archive 1

Neuromodulation

Hi -- I'm reverting the change you made because, although you're right that this ought to be changed, the way you handled it is even worse. See wp:dab for the right way to handle disambiguation. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Septum

Just a quick note to say I've contested your proposed move of Septum. My reasoning can be found at the requested moves page. Dpmuk (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please could you explain to me your move of this article before waiting for the requested move had finished. I'd clearly contested the move and so you should've waited for the discussion to finish. I also think there is a valid discussion to be had as to whetehr Septum (anatomy) should be the primary article and so be at Spetum. Additionally you have removed information from the septum article and as far as I can see not moved it anywhere else. Although the physics sense may not be referenced from any article on wikipedia and is currently searched a simple google scholar search reveals about 574 hits for "electrostatic septum" so it's obviously a term in use and so I don't think you should simply have removed the information. Just making a contested move like that goes against one of core ideas of wikipedia - that of consensus. It would also appear you didn't do a good faith search for the physics term and simply removed the information. I find this all quite disturbing and so am interested in your reasoning for these actions. Dpmuk (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I was not quite familiar with the procedure, but that is not a good excuse for my impatiens and the too short way. I was wrong.

Nevertheless the division was unclear, also for other users. Resulting in double listing in two articles. I wil explain here. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Acholeplasmataceae

Please see the naming conventions at WP:TOL. For higher-level taxa that contain a single subtaxon, the lower-level taxon is preferred unless the higher-level name is clearly more common in the literature. This is modified further by some specific Projects here, such as WP:PLANTS, where families are preferred to ordinal names. The "importance" of a taxon is not considered in naming articles.

Pity, you reverted before asking and without knowledge of the subject. Acholeplasmatales is the only name with importance.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have reverted your changes to the cell wall article. The Manual of Style indicates that prose paragraphs are preferred, and bulleted lists are to be avoided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case bullets improved the readability of the text. Clearness is more important than rules.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary nutritional groups

Hi there, I'd advise leaving in the definitions of the terms, such as carbon source and reducing equivalents, since although these seem quite obvious to us, most of the readers will be unaware of what these terms mean. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't change the definitions. They were pretty short. I tried to make it readable for common people.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK I see what you did. That is an improvement - the old "definitions" were pretty impenetrable! Something you may find useful is this tool. Just enter a PubMed ID number and it spits out a formatted reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. The article is, of course, still not perfect.--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our coverage of microbial metabolism is very weak - probably due to a bias towards "big fierce animals". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about WikiProjects

Can you explain why you removed the WPMED project banner from Vector (epidemiology)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Read here about what is a stub.--Wickey-nl (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Read here about what is a Start-class article. Note particularly that "... the article should ... provide enough sources to establish verifiability." Vector (epidemiology) has exactly one source and there is a {{verify source}} requesting factual verification. Under the circumstances, it is a matter of opinion which class to assess the article in. More seriously, it is considered a breach of wikiquette to remove templates placed in good faith by other WikiProjects - if you disagree with the classification, or disagree that the article falls under the scope of that project, please take the time to discuss it first. --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a start-class article, which was well indicated. It is not a stub, so improve-templates are appropriate.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I also would have placed it in the start-class list, but why did you remove the entire template, as if this subject were not within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, instead of just changing the assessment (or requesting that someone else change it here)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A few points to consider:

• The article should not be placed in the start-class list, because it does not provide enough sources to establish verifiability. That leaves it a stub.
• A wikiproject template is not an improve-template.
• It is perfectly appropriate—even desirable—to place an improve template, such as {{refimprove}} on a start-class article. This is in fact suggested at WP:Stub#Removing stub status.
• Perhaps it would help if you reviewed WP:ASSESS to gain an understanding of the purpose of wikiprojects' tagging of talk pages.

What are you doing here? How can an article be in two different classes? Read the definition of a stub. I just removed wrong templates and there are better ways to improve an article.--Wickey-nl (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you answer the question why you removed another project's assessment template without even providing an edit summary? --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not recognize them as different projects.--Wickey-nl (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(o/d) Sorry, I assumed you already knew that. I must have seemed very harsh and I apologise. The templates that wikiprojects place on the talk pages are just a way of helping a project organise articles that are in its scope. They represent just the opinion of a member of a project on the article, and it is perfectly possible for an article to be assessed by different projects in different classes. For example, the Military History WikiProject assessment doesn't use C-Class, so an article assessed C-class by WP:SCUBA could be assessed as Start-class by WPMILHIST. It's not a slight to the article, just a convenience to help the project in its work. Hope that helps and if you need more info on wikiprojects, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's clear, although I doubt that such labeling an article is of any use. Nevertheless, an edit summary could have been.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Some editors think that assessment is a big waste of time. If you agree with them, then you should just ignore it. The two primary uses are to direct attention to important articles that -- even if well-written -- need expansion, and to determine which articles are released by the WP:1.0 team. It helps them sort through Wikipedia's three million articles to find both the best articles and the most important ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Talk:Vector (epidemiology). Thank you. RexxS (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Same here, try to stick to the edit summary policy, example Pseudoephedrine V8rik (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

External links

Last month, you added an external link to the article on the mineral greigite. Just so you know, TheFreeDictionary is in large part a Wikimirror; therefore, referencing their content is inappropriate. DS (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

An external link is not the same as a reference.--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why link to a copy of our article? It is not a valid WP:EL. The references you changed to ext. links are the references used to write the article - I wrote it, so don't change them. And the article is still a stub. Vsmith (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

trans-Fe(NH₃)₂F₄^–

I think that you might have added this structure to coordination chemistry. Is this anion known?--Smokefoot (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just took it from Commons.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course virtually every Pt(II) and Pt(IV) Cl-NH3 permutation has been beaten to death. Related Fe fluorides are probably not known or are obscure. So if you find a nice image of a related cmpd, please upload it or let me know. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccessible resource - what?

Why is "C. Elschenbroich, A. Salzer ”Organometallics : A Concise Introduction” (2nd Ed) (1992) from Wiley-VCH: Weinheim. ISBN 3-527-28165-7" superfluous and inaccessible? Recall that the emphasis here is on secondary sources, not journal articles (WP:SECONDARY). But I am most curious about the "inaccessible" comment. What's up?--Smokefoot (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The source is superfluous for a simple basic definition. WP is an online encyclopedia. Resources should preferably be accessible online too, accessible for everyone everywhere. The book is ten years old book, but primary superfluous.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree, for the following reasons:

• Is there a Wiki-policy indicating that sources should be accessible on-line? I don't think so.
• You seem to define "accessible" in the context of on-line access, I define "accessible" as related to introductory level presentation (not journals, and rarely reviews, but books).
• Many books are in fact accessible on-line. Many recent Wiley-VCH books are on-line and as accessible as are journals. (Wiley-VCH is a major journal publishing house you will discover).
• As the organometallic community knows well, a new edition of Elschenbroich's book has appeared (without Salzer): Elschenbroich, C. ”Organometallics” (2006) Wiley-VCH: Weinheim. ISBN 978-3-29390-6. Check it out, great book.
• The area of metal carbonyl chemistry has not substantially changed since Elschenbroich' previous edition appeared, especially the basics. Editors should have no problem citing older books for such mature areas. The content is still valid, and the date of the book signals to the readers that the area is relatively mature.

You might want to explore policy themes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. The community of editors is friendly and like to discuss things like that (you can see that it interests me). Ideally, once consensus is achieved, we can enter such policy into our Manual of Style. Happy editing and thank, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that books should not be used as source, but even a good source is not always appropriate in every context. And okay, inaccessible was too strong. But on-line sources remain more accessible than off-line books and without the book one cannot verify the source.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Production data

I was wondering why you feel that "about 7 billion kg/year" is "arbitrary" and "unencyclopedic" in the description of phenol? Production figures seem the antithesis of arbitrary. Those consulting an encyclopedia should expect to know the scale of chemistry. Scale is one measure of significance, from the perspective of the economy and environmental consequences. I have inserted a lot of production data into articles so it is useful to resolve this issue.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First, statistics are always controversial, incomplete, made with assumptions with respect to the calculations, have big uncertainties. Second, they never cover the whole field, worldwide. Third, the figures change every year, every month, every hour, every second. Fourth, statistics are only interesting in certain contexts, not as bare fact. Little will be interested in it, except those who already have the figures. Five, it certainly does not belong in the lead or even in the chembox.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we disagree. Ullmann's is fairly authoritative, i.e. reliable. You may wish to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry on the unreliability of that data, because similar data are inserted widely. Such a debate would be healthy. Production data per hour or month are probably not needed to to give readers a sense of scale. In terms of production data belonging in the lead paragraph, the point is that scale of production is one measure of significance. The lead paragraph is in part intended to alert readers about the significance of the compound. Again, this is another item you may wish to discuss more broadly, because our views probably differ.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi I refined our manual of style (MOS) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Chemicals, which already recommends production data. That MOS has a discussion page if you want to share your views on production data being "always controversial, incomplete".--Smokefoot (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Preferred IUPAC names

Thanks for taking a look at the Preferred IUPAC name article. I notice that you are taking the words of the 2004 Draft Recommendations as if they were the final version: in fact it is not as simple as that. The 2004 Draft has never been formally published, and is is not internally self-consistent. I've asked for information on the progress of (organic) PINs from IUPAC, but I have never had any response. In the meantime, the 2005 Inorganic Recommendations treated organic PINs as accepted (organic names are often needed in inorganic nomenclature, and vice versa), although the inorganic PIN system is still under study.

Do you have any information as to where they are on the issue? The concept of PINs still seems to be an active idea, dispite the complexity it involves, but, as far as I'm aware, there are no agreed rules for how to construct them for either organic or inorganic compounds. Physchim62 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to ask here for confirmation that the Recommendations 2004 also formally "prevail in case of divergence among the various recommendations", meant are the Blue book and the Guide, (would you like to do that?).
If not, it should be stated in the article.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get any response from the IUPAC bigwigs, unfortunately! As for you question of divergence, I don't think it's as simple as you seem to make out. The new Blue Book is definitely a summary, as it makes clear in several sections (especially towards the end). Where there is clear divergence, then the new Blue Book would prevail, but where the new version is silent the older recommendations would remain valid. Nevertheless, the new Blue Book has yet to be approved so, for the moment, it has no formal status – even if we all know what it says, and even if some of its recommendations have been incorporated into the 2005 Red Book. Physchim62 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed well that the Recommendations are provisional! Nevertheless, I think the article is a good reflection of PIN. It is needed, however, to give a clear note that the Blue Book still does not have a formal status. The end of the lead might be a good place.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the lead accordingly. I know that IUPAC people read WP from time to time (at least one highly placed person is also an editor), so maybe that will jolt them into action... Physchim62 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also tried, yet again, to contact the people involved in promoting PINs; I'll obviously let you know if I have any success. Physchim62 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made your edit a bit more visible. I can imagine it is not very easy to make the whole world using the PINs.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the world won't use PIN's, but at the moment it is impossible to use them because the recommendations are not internally consistent! What I want to know is whether IUPAC is still going ahead with the project, or if it has scrapped it as too complicated. Either of the solutions are noble: what is not noble is to keep everyone in the dark. Physchim62 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--Wickey-nl (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've received confirmation that IUPAC is going ahead with the project: I'll give you the details by email later. Physchim62 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work!--Wickey-nl (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for Troph flowchart

Thank you for making the Troph flowchart. It is much better than the older version. I hope you don't mind me pointing out on Talk:Chemotroph some further possible ways to improve it. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant

May I inform you that a huge amount of effort has been put into this article. It was submitted as a featured article and very nearly made it. The wording has been subject to detailed scrutiny by a variety of editors. Please think very carefully before you change anything. Petergans (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was very controversial and rejected as featured article. A section with a compact general introduction but without a tangle of equations and formula, would be not bad. The lead should be very compact. The term for pK_a (in German pK_s-Wert) is yet not even mentioned.--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Could you please make use of the edit summary option in your edits. Makes life easier for fellow editors Thanks in advance V8rik (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Major edits will always be controlled by watchers, with or without summary, so a summary makes no difference. Without summary I always consider a control needed or justified. In many cases edits are clear.--Wickey-nl (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• You may want to consult the quidelines V8rik (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries are a form of courtesy and communication. They allow us to cooperate better.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Na2S

You can ask your colleagues about this, but hydrated Na₂S is more complicated than a salt of S^2-, it is almost certainly a derivative of SH^-. So on the water of crystallization article, hydrated sodium sulfide is non-ideal example, there are simpler ones where the locations of the protons are clearer examples.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As it is difficult to replace much bad text with good text at once you may consider it as provisional. Feel free to search for good examples and you may use article talkpages instead of user talkpages.--Wickey-nl (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Coordinated water

Hello there. I reverted the edit you made to Octahedral molecular geometry, because it linked th phrase "coordinated water" to water of crystallisation. THe two are not the same thing; water of crystallisation is not coodinated. Cheers, Chris (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Epsom salt

Hello again. Please think carefully about some of the edits you've been doing recently. For example, redirecting Epsom salt to Epsomite not Magnesium sulphate means that all the medicinal uses of Epsom Salt no longer appear on the same page, and there's a link on the page that redirects to itself. I'm also not happy with a lot of the stuff about Anion water, constitution water etc on the Water of crystallisation page, but will discuss this further at the chemistry Wikiproject before doing anything. Chris (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The redirection is correct. I think the medicinal uses belong on the Epsomite/Epsom Salt page. Logic.

The edits on Water of crystallisation are referenced, but most likely the use is not universal. Other sources are welcome.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Water of crystallisation again

Hello. I've reverted your changes, because what you are writing is wrong. My changes were not unexplained either; please enter the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Water of crystallisation before doing it again. Chris (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please give the right link if you make edits again.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hyperoxide

Er, this isn't the preferred name for superoxide. Suggest you have a look at page 71 of the red book. Chris (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The German page redirects to hyperoxide. Apparently there was an unsuccessful attempt of IUPAC to change the name, in the past.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not even of IUPAC: hyperoxide has never been a IUPAC name. It appears to be an obsession of a couple of German chemists to revive a name that never caught on. I tried to change it on dewiki, but was reverted. in English, it should be listed as an obsolete alternative. Physchim62 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, formerly the ion was named hyperoxide. See 1970 Rules, page 22. The German page is cleared now.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on IUPAC: hyperoxide is still obsolete, though, even as IUPAC nomenclature (regardless of what dewiki pretends). Physchim62 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not deny that.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Amphoterism

hi , i have just put the text u added in article of amphoterism in different part of article , actually just 2 passuses later ... i hope its ok to u ... --Tekstovi (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

do not call your fellow editors pseudo scientists

• This is bad taste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zwitterion, consider retracting your comment V8rik (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• I draw your attention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks". Petergans (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)