![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This archive covers up to the end of Aug 2008. Topics include rollback rights, CAS-Wikipedia collaboration, 1.0 (style issues, vandalism, exemplars, changes to assessment, etc), Zotero, Dispatch. For other talk page archives see User talk:Walkerma/Archives. Other close archives include: Archive10 — Archive11 — Archive12 — Archive13 — Archive14 — Archive15 — Archive16 — Archive17 — Archive18 — Archive19 — Archive20 — Archive21 — Archive22 — Archive24 — Archive25 — Archive26 — Archive27 — Archive28 — Archive29
Thanks for your input on C-class articles on WP:INDIA. Much appreciated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi I have seen the evolution timeline for "Atom" you created at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment as a demonstration for article evolution. It is so great. May I ask how did you select the specific time for each milestone? Did you do it manually by reviewing all of the revisions and set the milestones based on the assessment criteria? Or you had any advance tools for the evaluation? Because for the former method I found it is hard to set the exact boundary for each status? I am now doing a research on Wikipedia and need to review about 100 articles concerning their evelution on quality(so tedious...). So I would be greatly thankful if you could share some of your experience and help me out. Thanks! yuzhong 16:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you please intercede - leave advice or moderate - on this very contentious article splitting business. We are trying to spin out an article on organofluorine chemistry and two versions are contending and participants are getting grumpy.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone has obviously put a ton of hard work into Jewish American, but it needs a lot more work still. It has many ((fact)) tags, sections that read like lists, formatting probs with the cites, and... arguably has a mild POV problem. I wouldn't include it, unless several people are willing to dedicate a couple weeks to improving it. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you review articles for Version 7.0. I was wondering if you could do that for this article- Akshardham (Delhi). The article is on its way to being a GA after someone reviews it. It is considered one of the largest temples in the world and the largest Hindu temple. I was wondering if you could look over it for Version 7.0 Juthani1 tcs 19:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. Could you also look at Swaminarayan. It is a sect of hinduism which has gained popularity in recent years Juthani1 tcs 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Walkerma, there is a new and considerably improved version of Horses in warfare up now, we are tweaking it for FA and made a number of mostly minor, but noticeable changes. If it is not too late to swap versions fot the 0.7 revision, here is a permanent link to the most current "clean" version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horses_in_warfare&oldid=250953408 Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to offer a general apology because I think I have been a bit too forceful in my posts on the fluorocarbon talk page. Thanks for bringing up the issue of complexity with Lemal's designation of HFCs as fluorocarbon derivatives. I am in quite a edit war (it seems) with Itub over carbon-fluorine bond, organofluorines, and organofluorine chemistry. He is alleging that my organofluorine page is a POV fork. I think a short organofluorine page is essential for Wikipedia. I feel responsible for perhaps pushing him over the edge - I think he is being illogical at this point because of my bullheaded tone on the fluorocarbon talk page (but I could be wrong, it is my impression though). Perhaps you can assist us as we work on these pages. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Johnson became an FA on 7 October 2008. The 0.7 nom process says that FAs were automatically listed for nomination, but I never saw Johnson appear, nor any indication that it was ever reviewed. Was this an oversight? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You asked: "... If I were to try vandalising the CAS# on Boric acid, what would happen?".
I started a Q & A for CheMoBot, see User talk:CheMoBot/Q&A. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Walkerma/Archive23 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. 20 Nov for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well earned. Good idea, Rlevse! Wim van Dorst (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC).
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CrCl3 CrCl2.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGatalk 04:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CrCl3 dibenzenechromium.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGatalk 04:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I learned today that Mbeychok quit wikipedia because of me (he's back now). Since you said goodbye to him, you probably read his version of things, but didn't have mine. I don't really care for comments on the whole situation as it's water under the bridge to me, but I would at least like to have the chance to clear my name. You don't have to agree with me or even reply, but I wrote on a rant on my user page, and I would appreciate if you took a minute to read it. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Heya Martin
I was wondering about your instructions a while back ([1]). Do you still use Isis Draw? Are you still scanning? Or is there a better way now? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Martin, good to hear from you too. You've been scarce recently. Am travelling now; while I do get internet access where I'm staying, long days make me edit sporadically. Where time permits, I've reverted to the sort of work which first drew me here - writing articles on chems and drawing structures. I've got some heavy stuff (Itub's RFA, e.g.) to do, but I'd rather wait until I have some quiet time to do it right, rather than dash it off perfunctorily. Thanks for your reply. Looks like no fix for Isis Draw yet. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Martin, I saw you did some work on the update of the class-details of articles on the WP:CHEMS worklist. With the introduction of more automatic indexing I have not actively maintained those details in that list, and have been focussing on getting all WP:CHEMS articles at least rated. Rather than maintaining those details, I was considering to remove classification details per article from that manually maintained list, as the bot indexing is much easier. I do want to retain the grouping, and the extra comments per article for background. And of course I think we should give some effort on doing some more article upgrading too, but that appears to require much more spare time than any of the WP:CHEMS editor has. What do you think? Keep details (probably quite outdated) or clean up? Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for reviewing and assessing Sidney Lumet. It reminded me to go back to some other articles, so I added them as open requests. If you get a chance, I hoped you might check them out to see if some should be rated differently. Any comments or suggestions would also be great. Thanks. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Woops! - just relocated them to Biographies. Never been to this part of town! Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? 198.163.53.11 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion thread at WT:PHARM:CAT, and would value your input if avaliable. kilbad (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
hello again. i was thinking about the importance of the PFOA article and thinking it might be upgraded to high importance. i remember (i think) you upgraded the BPA article to high on the basis of significant news coverage. so i thought i would run this by you to potentially avoid a potentially time consuming and burdensome back and forth on the PFOA talk page if you find my logic harmless: Here are a couple recent news articles from the Guardian (UK)[2] and Washington Post (US)[3]. New York Times (US) and BBC (UK) stories are cited in the article already. The USEPA issued a provisional health advisory recently for drinking water. It appears this chemical would be of high importance to WP:CHEMS also since it has received coverage (also from LA Times) in large national/international news agencies and now has a USEPA provisional health advisory for drinking water (in addition to Germany and other US States such as WV, NJ, and MN). Also, other environmental chemicals such as PFOS and BPA are considered as "high" importance. It appears this chemical would qualify also. Thanks for listening. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that PFOS should only be Mid, but the tagger obviously thought that the Stockholm Convention issue made it really important, but if those scores are maintained it should go back to Mid IMHO. I'd also say that probably at least a quarter of our importance assessments are wrong, IMHO! I'd ask User:Wimvandorst, he'll give you a good second opinion, but bear in mind we don't have many environmental chemists active on WP, so we may tend to "undervalue" the importance of substances that environmental chemists are interested in. Hope this helps, Walkerma (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Heya Martin
I don't have institutional access, so I can't find out what reported routes to this compound exist. Hoping you might help?
It seems like the most obvious would be the methylation of bipy by chloromethane, but I can't find anything to support that.
Appreciate your help, thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You seemed interested in my proposals for FA: they are currently taking shape at User:Physchim62/Sandbox and I hope to publish them more widely very shortly. Physchim62 (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
An article you and I collaborated on, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, has been tagged as an orphan article. The tagger is correct; there are no articles whatsoever that link to the page: just a redirect from CFATS and mentions in non-article space. I suggest that the two of us find appropriate articles that should link to this. I just added a link in the Chemical plant article. I'll look for others, too. You being the chemist and me being the lawyer, I expect we'll both find articles in our respective fields of expertise, but lets not be shy about crossing into each others areas (as I just did with Chemical plant). If we can get about at least five links, I think it will be appropriate to remove the tag. TJRC (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Heya Martin
I've made some changes to this article... any comments? Anything else to improve on? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Ping. :-) Kirill [pf] 21:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cerium alkylation.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)