User talk:Beetstra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Any remarks, notes, questions? Add them below.

--Dirk Beetstra 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for a bad impression

Beetstra, sorry that my comments seemed harsh. I welcome you and will do what I can to make your stay enjoyable. I also hardly know anything about machinery of WE, which is populated by some very dedicated folks. The leaders of the chem thing are very knowledgable about chemistry, the computational-informational business, and somehow manage to be nice always. I can only stay with this project for a while longer then I need to slow down. It would be great if you could do anything, including correcting writing or checking odd facts. I agree that the tough part is figuring out which cmpds are important. I dont think that holmium oxide would have rated high on many people's lists, but the organizers were probably aiming for coverage vs importance. Yes, I know, you could ask a thousand chemists and each would give you a different list of what is important. Personally, I have taken the tactic of figuring out which cmpds interest me enough to dig up info. Most of what I do benefits other parts of my life as a chemist. Also it is a hobby. So do let me know if I can do anything to repair my initial bad impression! Cheers,--Smokefoot 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, I hope I didn't sound unfriendly! I was the person who originally proposed the goals, and I think they help target our efforts, but I would encourage you to work on things that you know about and that you enjoy. We really need every knowledgable chemist we can get, and I think you'll find we're a pretty friendly lot when you get to know us! Feel free to ask for help if you need it. Cheers, Walkerma 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, Smokefoot. In a way you give away the trick to finding 'important' chemicals, is there a way to get the statistics on how often pages in a category (e.g. Category:Organic_compounds) are accessed (or better: searched for, but not found)?? That would tell us where the combined effords should lie (pick the highest compound from the list that has your interest). I think that that tactic would be better than (using the same example) putting a single holmium compound in the list. --Dirk Beetstra 09:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you could figure out what chemicals are viewed most often that would be helpful. That's beyond me. Probably something boring like KI.--Smokefoot 13:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not most viewed, but most edited (chemicals and chemistry related selection):

Edits	Article	WikiProject	Assessed
1652	Cannabis	none	A-Class
1270	Beer	WP:BEER	A-Class
1151	LSD	Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants	A-Class
1023	DNA	none	A-Class
968	Water	WP:WPSci, not WP:Chem (B-Class)	A-Class
940	Diamond	none	FA
925	Chocolate	none	A-Class
912	Heroin	Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs	A-Class
899	Emma Watson	none, but gut-feeling chemistry?	B-Class
857	Wine	none	B-Class
805	Enzyme	none, not even Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry	B-Class
731	Alchemy	none, not even Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry	FA
731	Periodic table	none, not even Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry	B-Class
718	Petroleum	none, not even WP:Chem	A-Class
661	Hydrochloric acid	WP:Chem	FA

-). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Wim van Dorst, also that is an entry into chemistry pages that are worth looking at, trouble is, these pages are probably quite good, already (I will certainly have a look through them, and see if I can contribute in any way). I have now resorted to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Requested_articles and start the ones that are of interest to me, or which I know something about. Cheers anyway.--Dirk Beetstra 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Embargo TiCl3 for 10 days?

Dear Dirk: As a few in the WE-Chem world know, I lead a group of 28 students that write wiki articles. While trying to partially address Wim's and Martin's goals, the course is aimed at training student in learning how to express relatively advanced chemical concepts in words. TiCl3 is one of our assignments - the student Kelly Kohnen is just about to start inserting content (and the semester ends next week). If you can give me and my students one week, then you will find lots of good raw material to refine, correct, beat on, embelish, whatever. Some previous student projects that overlap with your interests include ScCl3, Cp2TiCl2, Tebbe's reagent - you are welcome to work away at these. I have tried to fix some obvious problems but these articles would benefit from your knowledge. ScCl3 is especially awkwardly written. The students tend to be redundant, wordy, avoid meaty topics, and to not include useful references. The full list of my course's assignment is on my talk page. We're also doing Fp2, Ziegler-Natta. Cheers, --Smokefoot 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smokefoot, I have had a look on the list and adopted some of the pages in my list as well (in general compounds that I have used, which does not mean that I thoroughly know them), stating the embargo as a personal reminder. I will stay away from editing the reserved pages until May 12, 2006. Interesting concept, using Wikipedia as a teaching aid. I presume that the students are chemistry students in university?

I am sure the raw material will be of sufficient quality, let me know when the students have finished, I might comment on the inserted material. I will have a look every now and then. Is it OK if I add teasers to the talk-pages? Wish them good luck. --Dirk Beetstra 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, You are welcome to correct things as the students proceed with their projects, but just avoid major edits. These are seniors in chemistry at a big university. Dont get your hopes up, the US chemistry undergraduate degree does not compare favorably with those from Europe - our kids are smart but they just dont know many facts and have little real world exposure. --Smokefoot 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hey Dirk, the student is done with Cp*H - all yours. The only ones we are playing with are on the talkpage and you already have them noted. It would be wonderful to have a real organometallicker "do" Cp*H. --Smokefoot 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts (May 3, 2006)

• Did something with Cp*H and CpH .. and in the meanwhile did something with Cp complexes as well. Especially the latter needs quite some work (the first two can be attacked by an organic chemist, first), but now I am tired, maybe tomorrow .. if I am not too fed up by undergrads showing me a two-layer system in a flask, and asking me if the upper layer is 'ether' (I guess they mean diethyl ether .. but how the **** should I know .. it could be anything) .. so I revert to an educational answer: 'what do you think?' .. and go back to solving solving the Sudoku in the last Metro (Associated Metro Limited).

Thoughts (May 4, 2006)

• No real time today, sorry. I wanted to watch a movie, and I am tired. Although the demonstrating today was quite relaxing, not too many people around. Only some practical questions. Except for one, who wanted to know all about Co(NO₂)₃(NH₃)₃ and the difference between ferrocene and nickelocene. I guess he should read in Wikipedia more often, especially since he remarked that it was the Source of all evil (and now I am surprised this page actually exists ... but it is not the page I intended, maybe this or this comes closer). How do people come up with these ideas, why would the Wikipedia be more evil than any other page on the internet? The information you find here (indeed an interesting concept) is also likely to be found outside the Wikipedia!!! But maybe he should now even think about finding the information to fill up the gaps in Wikipedia, since he has to find them for his assignments as well. To give him a bit of help, I think he will find some interesting pages here, here (what a coincidence that I just grabbed the information together, sorry I don't have time to polish it a bit), here and maybe here. Good luck, and if you need any help, create an account, and drop me a line. Cheers.

Thoughts (May 6, 2006)

• Just changed some minor things in some pages these last two days. Today some work around the house (but for the moment the British weather is stopping me: rain .. Time to listen to Placebo, 'English summer rain'). I might drop in later today. See you!
• Started up my Dutch account (here)

carbene redirects

Hi Dirk, i have noticed you reworked some of the redirects for carbenes. I will try to convince you that the way it was makes sense. Basically information gets destroyed when you change a persistent carbene redirect to a carbene redirect, In the see also section you would be able to see what other articles are relevant to persistent carbenes (other than carbenes) but not anymore. Also eventually as the number of edits increase persistent carbene is a candidate for splitting off as a separate article and this process is easier when the the new article takes with him the relevant links. I hope I have made myself clear. Any thoughts? V8rik 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, did not look at it like that, sorry. As a matter of fact I had thought of separating the persistent carbene/carbenes used as ligands in organometallic chemistry part of the main subject earlier, but found it not big enough (by far) yet. Guess I will have to monitor my own enthousiasm a bit .. Dirk Beetstra 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, one would have to go through the list 'what links here' anyway (and probably even do a search on other pages where the link would be useful), and what to do with the N-Heterocyclic carbenes vs. persistent carbenes (Let's continue this discussion on the talk page of carbenes). (I will put some time in returning some pages back to the state which they had this evening). By the way, I can't find the 'see also' section you mentioned above. Dirk Beetstra 16:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response, lets do future discussions on the carbene page, only one thing for me to clarifiy, with see also I actually ment what links here V8rik 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Dirk Beetstra 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not finish to go through the candidates for persistent carbenes. First wanted to isolate a diamine, call home, had to cook, and when I ended up on benzimidazoline, I started reading, and got confused. Had to read something about endergonic and exergonic, but these pages are, err, not very clear. But I will keep it on my todo-list. Dirk Beetstra 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Smokefoot stuff is un-embargoed

Beetstra: thank you for giving us some time. We're finished with the project, so you are welcome to edit as much as you wish. Thank you for reminding us that TaCl5 is colorless too - embarassing!--Smokefoot 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. I already saw you cleaning up and sorting. I hope the students did a good job. About the TaCl5, there were two colours mentioned, which got me confused, I have used TaCl5 and NbCl5, and now I did not remember anymore which had which colour. But indeed, TaCl5 is the white one, also after sublimation. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Endothermic reaction Benzoic acid Mannheim process Hunter process Stille reaction Chloride Coordination geometry Nickel carbonyl Borate Standard state NFPA 704 Natural abundance Oxidizing agent Covalent radius Shear modulus Titanic acid Standard molar entropy Yttrium(III) oxide Silver(II) fluoride

Cleanup Colors of chemicals Bergius process Extraction of iron Merge Intermolecular force Base (chemistry) Hydrobromic acid Add Sources Sulfur mustard Raoult's law Skull crucible Wikify Roksan Audio Collaborative human interpreter Egmont (play) Expand Triphenylphosphine Palladium(II) chloride Lithium hydroxide

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot should be re-programmed!

My ego is offended since Suggestbot thinks that some of the articles that I have worked on are stubby! Ni(CO)4, PdCl2, Hydrobromic acid (see also Hydrogen bromide) and AgF2 are respectable non-stubs. Titanic acid should be sunk, because it does not exist except in some theorist's computer. Since you are a Ti enthusiast, you are welcome to try to delete that one!--Smokefoot 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:)) (why don't smileys work here??). I encountered suggestbot, and decided to try and see what he came up with ..

You are right, the pages you mention are certainly not stubby anymore (PdCl2 might need some more data, but that will come as people come across that, I hope ..). And indeed, Ti(OH)4 should just be incorporated into TiO2 or into titanate. Oh, wait, titanate redirects to titanic acid .. aargh. But well, I will have a look, I must say, it does point towards some things I did not see myself, and I see how it did it's job, it just takes the pages I have edited sofar, and looks at the pages those pages link to, and sees if there are 'stub', 'expand' marks etc. It might need some reprogramming, I think it should look a couple of levels deeper than that, to get to pages that are not that obvious to reach. And stub and expand marks should be used with care, some pages just do not have more to tell than only 3 lines. That's just the way it is. --Dirk Beetstra 07:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Coordination chem

Apparently we came up with similar ideas on fixing this topic. As you indicated - an undisciplined approach will wasteful. We could make a list of the topics that need to be correlated, so that we avoid redundancies. Ligand is one. But even organometallic and bioinorganic chem. denticity. We could also bring the topic up to Walkerma and the admin folks. --Smokefoot 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just starting a similar discussion on your talk-page. But I saw that you already posted something here. There are indeed some things that I feel should be there, and I did not see how to escape us working on the same section. In my opinion there should be information somewhere about having or not having a 'closed shell' (is this indeed a missing subject, it relates to s, p, d, ánd f block .. I saw you wanted to say something about TM; La/Ac; p-block), and the implications thereof. It gives openings to reactivities, para-, ferro- and diamagnetism (are these subjects covered in the Wikipedia?), and it explains the importance of ligands (another opening you introduced). There are some topics, which seem to be scattered around several pages, that might have a better place in their own page (e.g. the explanation of 'η' which was in cyclopentadienyl complex, which I tried to put into hapticity). Still some concepts that need explaining, I think.

Hope I did not scare you away, I think we can enhance each others edits (since we live approx 6 timezones apart, that should be possible without too many edit-conflicts, I'm going to bed soon). --Dirk Beetstra 21:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Electron counting

Beetstra, no need to move away from the electron counting site. I am done pretty much. The article looks like it is mainly about 18e rule anyway. No reason to start an 18e rule site because the ligand counting rules that you are laying out apply to any scheme. I just did it during my lunch break for relaxation. You do good work, and I just lack time to keep up. --Smokefoot 19:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is my problem with the page, it is practically an 18-electron rule page, while it should give the rules of electron counting. Therefore I would like to move the 18-electron part into an own page, similar to the octet rule page, and make both pages aware of 'electron counting' (which will be more comprehensive then). So I will move 18 electron-part now .. see you around! --Dirk Beetstra 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re your question, I would suggest that Electron counting be in the chemical bonding category along with Octet rule and the 18 Electron rule, while the 18-Electron rule and the CComplex (chemistry) pages get also listed under Inorganic chemistry?As for missing information, a quick glance suggests to me that you need to put in some real examples into the articles, preferably with nice coloured drawings to illustrate them. Think of an A-Level student trying to understand Werner's theory - there is almost nothing in the Complex article to help them, even though that topic should clearly be there. Think of an undergrad struggling with inorganic, trying to understand how to count electrons in complexes - ferrocene is not a simple example for a beginner. I would use something like Cr(CO)₆, then move on to Fe(NH3)6²⁺, then do ferrocene. Wikipedia is not a textbook, so the article shouldn't just be a list of examples, but many people reading Wikipedia are students who are looking for examples to help them learn. Thanks for all your work on those pages, the 18e rule is one of my favourite things from inorganic chem (just read any of my transition metal compound articles, you'll see I overuse it!!) Cheers, Walkerma 22:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will go through the categories now, the rest will have to wait (tomorrow another day in the lab ..). For the examples, I will include some more, and have an eye on the Werner-topic (and try to link these back and forth). Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeise's salt

I already made a page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Zeise%E2%80%99s_salt

but I can't get things to link to it....!--Brichcja 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Chemical substance

I have copied the discussion at User talk:Walkerma#Chemical substance to Talk:Chemical substance and responded to you there. - Centrx 23:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ligands forever!

Beestra: I was not paying a lot of attention and just throwing things in to the nifty projects that you seem to keep starting. I know that you'd "weed" out junk or irrelevancies. I guess that you will merge the two tables. Also, the list could go on forever, because everything, virtually is a ligand. M-NO2 is an excellent ligand, and I think more common. [Co(NO2)6]3- is a standard species, I think. Yes, you're probably correct that the O-bonded isomer is weaker field. You have possibly seen the rxn of OH- with linear MNO, which reminds me that one could add a section on reactions of coordinated ligands. But again, this is a topic of almost infinite scope (most of catalysis for example). Changing the subject, some reason, many people are under the impression that CN is ambidentate, but it isnt (IMHO). There are zero examples of M-NC complexes unless a proton or another M is sitting on the C. B-NC/B-CN and Si-CN/Si-CN I have seen, but not M-NC. Keep up the good work.--Smokefoot 00:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

suppliers

(I'm not sure whether I can include your mail without paste...)

>Dear Peter, I still have the 'dispute' about the chemical suppliers in the back of my head.

-)

> What do you think about the following suggestion (and the accompanying .. 'yes, but how?'): Would it be an idea to make a page comparable to the ISBN search engine (e.g. Special:Booksources&isbn=0002570122)

This didn't work for me - but I guess the idea is that there is an ISBN resolver.

> working on the CAS number. Such a page could contain an infinite list with suppliers, making the data easily accessible, as well as (and probably more important) searches into many other search-engines. As announced, if the answer to this question is 'yes!' .. how are special pages made (I saw you are into cheminformatics .. hope I am asking the right person)? --Dirk Beetstra 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea but it won't work :-(. All CAS numbers are copyright CAS and an authoritative search for *one* costs USD 5.80 last time I looked. I do not approve of some of CAS's policies, especially their attempt to close down PubChem - and I'm no public record. Because I work closely with IUPAC I am evangelising the IUPAC InChI which is free of restrictions and does not depend on an authority. I would be keen to see InChI used for structure and substructure searches in WP.

I'm excited abou WP - unfortunately chemists as a whole are very conservative and most instinctively disapprove of something that free and created by volunteers. But we shall win through. I can see WP Chem becoming standard in undergraduate courses in a few years.

P.

Petermr 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Chemical substance

Dirk,

Just to let you know, I've already done a major rewrite of Chemical substance offline, I'll try to upload it this weekend. I was hoping to include pictures of the classic Fe/S vs FeS experiment, but that'll have to wait. Then I'm going to look at the solution, solvent and solute articles, and make those work better. Of course solid, liquid and gas need tons of work, but maybe we need the physics people to help with those! Thanks, Walkerma 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, cheers. Looking forward to see that! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heel Mooi...

Nice userpage: I award thee:

For a well-organised and clear user page

Cheers, Jean-Paul 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Spreekt u Nederlands?

P.S. I could really do with some help in translating the Nederlands Spoorwegmuseum from the better Dutch version into English

OK. I am doing that right now, Jean-Paul 07:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Flurocarbons

Just wanted to say how much fun I am having working with you the Flurocarbon page. Hope others join in soon this month. =) -Dawn Burn 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ChemicalSources and other edits

Yeah, I'm just iterating through Category:Chemical compounds in depth-first fashion and randomly cleaning up stuff. I've added {{importance}} to a lot of articles because I think even a tiny stub should say what the stuff is good for or why anyone would be interested in it. I'm being very lenient: even a single word like pesticide or semiconductor is enough for now.

Random question: Is carbon monofluoride an organic or inorganic compound? —Keenan Pepper 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Inorganic chem

Dirk, would you please look at Inorganic chemistry and make changes, give suggestions? I think that you are the only other practicing inorganicker out there.--Smokefoot 02:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ChemicalSources template

I wonder if this template would look better if it was bulleted. Since you've been putting the template in the external links sections, which are typically bulleted, maybe it would give a more consistent appearance if the template was too. Just a thought.

And thanks for creating and adding the template, too - it's a big job adding the template to so many articles. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Beetstra, just a small comment, to me the template is out of place with chemical compounds certainly not for sale. An example is Cavicularin. Perhaps limit the project to commercially relevant compounds? just a thought V8rik 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Chemical categories

I notice you experimenting with category syntax at Template:ChemicalSources. If you just want a list of all the articles with that template, you can always use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:ChemicalSources. That's not alphabetized, though, so it might not be what you're looking for. —Keenan Pepper 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the watching (and correcting) eye. I know that, and that indeed gives a list, but somehow that does not work in WP:AWB. That's where I would like to see it. There is a work-around .. just put a nonsense-category in the template, wait for a moment, create a list in AWB from the nonsense-category (which does not actually exist, but pages about chemicals have them as a redlink for that moment), and remove the nonsense-category again.

I think, by the way, that the problem is at another level, many, many pages about chemicals are either not categorised, or not completely catagorised, I think I have edited most of the chemical substances (about 2300) in the last weeks (using different lists in AWB), but I am afraid I have still missed many. I could do an AWB run to categorise pages that now have the ChemicalSources template (willing to do that, though I should also prepare for a conference), but I would still miss the chemicals I have missed in previous runs. Do you see any solution? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have categorised the compounds without catagory (mainly into either category:inorganic compounds or category:organic compounds .. 96/2388, just over 4% .. I guess most are categorised now, except for those in category:chemical substances in the Wikipedia that are very hard to find. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Edible salt

Hey -- you're right. I had messed up the references. Thanks for cleaning up after me, though I'm sorry it was necessary.

I do have a couple of comments in the talk page for that article for where I think we could go from here. Please feel free to state your opinion... Jacqui^★ 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

titanium dioxide

i don't really know what the numbering system is, but i see it many times in uk products (soap, shampoo, etc), i presume Cl (L not I) means colour, thet's all i know. btw this ip is shared and you're never likely to hear from me again. tata. 193.114.111.10

Thanks for the help with butanol fuel

I realised that when I had tried to improve the butanol page I had actually messed it up quite a bit. (And forgot to login, so the changes couldn't even be blamed on me.) Thanks for splitting it into two subjects, fixing references and what not. Hopefully I learn someday to write Wikipedia articles properly. --Ebschgu 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ligand

Dear Beetstra, let me disagree with your removal of link to Quantum 3.2 software from Ligand article. First time in the history community has a chance to identify ligands in-silico so effectively, the researchers can do it for free as a trial. It is honest and useful to inform people interested in ligands about ways to research ligands in their PCs. I think one of the purposes of Wiki is like that. Best wishes, Max —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.16.32.66 (talk • contribs)

Hapticity

Dirk, take a look at this recently revised article - it needs your voice. I think that the historical Zeise's salt-level intro is out of place ...--Smokefoot 02:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back and thank-you for the rapid repair of Hapticity - it needed you. You and I disagree on tmeda, not that I will lose sleep over this: No way that bidentate tmeda is eta-2! Altough young people use that terminology, they are just sloppy or unaware. Oh, while you were gone, we started Sandwich compound since metallocene had been narrowly defined to only include Cp2M's. --Smokefoot 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Moronic acid

Dirk Beetstra nee Gently, please check out what I have done in creating {{ChemicalSources3}}, which you can observe as linked-to from Moronic acid. ManVhv 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You can go to the template with Template:ChemicalSources3. ManVhv 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(I have answered on your page) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A relative?

Hi Dirk - I knew a "Jan" Beetstra who originated from Dokkum - any connection that you know of - regards -- Nigel ^(Talk) 13:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, I don't know of any connection (my father is also called Jan, but he is not from Dokkum). You could have a look at the genealogy my sister has been working on: Family Beetstra, but I guess you would encounter quite soms 'Jan's. Regards, Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk - I found the family with no problem. I stayed with them twice in Dokkum more years ago than I like to remember and also stayed in Groningen too. All the best -- Nigel ^(Talk) 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dirk - just to say I did contact your sister - hope she got the mail ok - regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 11:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Chemical sources

During your recent additions of Wikipedia:Chemical sources you have added the following sentence: "For a full list of external links see chemical sources." That sentence does not make sense because external links are in the article, the link leads to a list of commercial sources. I suggest that you change that sentence in all articles accordingly. Cacycle 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a sentence in the template, so that is quite easy. I do confess, it is difficult to find a good, short sentence that describes that page. It is supposed to be temporarily, anyway, I hope it is possible to get rid of it, and make things link via CAS etc. I will have a look, do you have any suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is not only commercial sources, there are many non-commercial links there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See our existing discussion above, in Moronic Acid and also on my talk page. Dirk Beetstra is a man a little ahead of his time.

A nice bullet point item in an 'external links' section is a noun phrase, not a sentence. For comparison, in a Bibliography one does not craft a complete sentence ("The book Ten Dogs was written by John Doe in 1972 and published by Kraft Bookwvrks."), we use little noun phrase things such as ("John Doe, Ten Dogs, 1972, Kraft Bookwvrks.") Similarly, the link which takes us to a special wikipedia page on external sources of data and chemicals should be a noun phrase, not an imperative sentence or imperative fragment. Also, removing the imperative action verb improves the tone. So, rather than writing "For external links to blah, click here.", I would rather see "External Links to Blah". So I changed the template. ManVhv 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, sorry that I did not get that point. OK, much better now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it should not called "external links" (those are already in the article), it should read something like "further information". "External links" is extremely confusing and misleading. Cacycle 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am open to these suggestions (it's not like I mind people tweaking the {{ChemicalSources}} template). For me this is an intermediate solution. This link for now allows to remove all biased links to external sources (because whatever they are, there are only a few links on the page, and commercial or not commercial, they are biased, vide infra). The text this template displays can change. I hope, that someone will help us create a way of linking CAS numbers and other unique 'chemical identifiers' these into the Wikipedia:Chemical sources-page (like the Special:Booksources-page), after that, most of the links in most external links sections can be removed, along with the ChemicalSources template (just takes an AWB run)

About being biased: OK, if there are 1, 2 or 5 chemical companies named, they will be biased, it may be commercial, and they could be put there in a commercial way (though I, and many with me, are reverting those links quite fast). So that is clear. Putting them all there is senseless (can be done using this template, quite easy), but pages would grow to absurd sizes. Now, for some government or non-commercial organisations, they get paid by how much of their data gets used (bosses still want to see results, and they have to get their money somewhere). So if one organisation gets all the CAS links, and others dont, a shift of money or interest may occur because of the links in Wikipedia. So therefore my suggestion (or actually, that of the actuator of this, [[user:213.188.227.119), create a metapage. This has been discussed, and has found at least some consensus (though there are of course many people who I did not ask whether or not this was a good idea after all). Maybe I am on a quest here, which is senseless, and I should stop this. To me, it all makes sense, ISBN has a working meta-page. So booksellers have no reason to put links on the page, and everybody can find the additional information, so that must be possible for chemicals as well .. it's only for the programming of the special-page. I don't have a clue to do that.

(my sincere excuses for my somewhat cynical tone) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, your latest change to the hyperlink noun phrase is really excellent. I hope you don't despair of some programmer writing a Special::Chemical_Sources for you. It's a good idea; someone will do it at some point. ManVhv 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ESDU

As you suggested, I've done some cleanup on the ESDU article (including moving it to Engineering Sciences Data Unit). What do you think? --Eyrian 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2-furanone infobox

Nice infobox on 2-furanone. I was interested that the systematic name apparently uses the "butenolide" base rather than "furanone"; the heterocyclic chem reference I looked at implied that these compounds are only named as butenolides in the natural products synthesis community. If the compound really is named as a butenolide, should the article then be located at butenolide, which is currently a redirect? Opabinia regalis 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, though it is the same infobox that was first on furanolactone (except for the image). Principly, I don't care at which title the article resides, as long as it can be found via one of the ways people call this compound. I guess most people in the lab would call it 2-furanone. And as long as the data can be found it is OK with me (I prefer to keep it at the title the original creator chose). Thinking about it .. this is about the compound 2-furanone/2-Buten-1,4-olide, which is a butenolide. Strictly the redirect from butenolide is not warranted, it deserves an own article (I guess it should describe that a butenolide is a compound with a such-and-such framework, and that the simplest example is 2-furanone, and that ascorbic acid is another example). I hope this was helpful. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I created the 2-furanone article on the basis of the AfD on furanolactone. It was my understanding that 2-furanone is colloquially called butenolide in natural products synthesis, so I put the article at 2-furanone as the more likely search term over furan-2-one. I've converted butenolide to a stub on the class of compounds. I'm guessing there won't be many searches for 2-buten-1,4-olide. Opabinia regalis 21:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is a good choice! Butenolide looks great. Thanks for the cooperation! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Excessive safety info

I figured we could keep the discussion here. So here is your message to me:

Safety @ chlorine

Hi Smokefoot. I saw we came to hydrogen sulfide almost at the same moment. Indeed there are many pages that get massive savety parts in them. I now saw chlorine, there is also a precautions section there which may be cut down .. but the article is stated 'A class' .. I feel like a bigger copy-edit (I would not call WW-I one of the major 'applications and uses' of chlorine gas ...). Any suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for editing hydrogen sulfide but you missed the entire other section on "toxicity". In terms of chlorine, I'd be glad to work with you. But you seem to have great effect on WE with no revert wars. User talk:Skatebiker has started to insert warnings with a skull and crossbones on it - which is an unfortunate trend. As user talk:Keenanpepper indicated, it is easy for someone who knows no chemistry to feel useful by inserting bits about chemical dangers. Ultimately, I think that the only solution to this "safety bloat" is connected to your initiative on Chemsources where one sents the safety anecdotes and reports to some other place. I am contacting Keenan. --Smokefoot 21:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. First, about hydrogen sulfide .. no, I did not miss that section, that section was more about the (biochemical) working of the toxin, that seemed like useful information (may need a bit of reworking). Precautions and warnings are more of the concern. About chlorine, I will have a look what I can do. Prob do some heavy copy-edit, and again cut down the safety-section. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through chlorine now, removed quite some bits and resorted the article (I guess it is more or less in a logical order now). Will leave it for now, maybe do some more later, but I will also strictly monitor it now. Hope this does not step on too many long toes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you guys up to? What are you going to do, delete every reference to every compound or molecule being toxic, explosive or otherwise hazardous? What wikipedia policy are you following here? When you delete stuff are you actually checking that it's still covered elsewhere, like in the MSDS? Does the MSDS actually contain anything? What happens if somebody discovers something that isn't in the MSDS, they're not allowed to add it to the wikipedia because it's a safety issue? Have you even thought this through at all?WolfKeeper 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have. Is there a policy that tells that there should be safety info.

Much of the info is covered in MSDS data sheets. Moreover, it is even earlier covered in the article (we are discussing hydrogen peroxide here. We are not deleting references to compounds being toxic, we minimize the text. And if somebody discovers something that isn't in the MSDS, then it either should be in the MSDS, or it should have sound references to it. Please have a look at hydrogen sulfide. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I do believe MSDS's are quite complete, companies cannot afford incomplete MSDS-sheets. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? So you can quote every single piece of specific information that you deleted, from the MSDS can you? This is an encyclopedia. Think about what that means people would want from an article.WolfKeeper 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I said, I said that an MSDS is more complete than this article can ever be, you are missing risks now, and therefore if people are using the compound in a wrong way, not described in Wikipedia, they run a risk. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Indexing chemical names

If you would like to take on the task of properly indexing chemical names with prefixes, that would be great. Hopefully it can be done with automation. This would include all compounds with names that start with numbers, Greek letters, tert-, sec-, n- (but not iso-), N-, S-, ortho-, meta-, para, D-, L-, and probably some others I'm forgetting at the moment. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

I am answering on User:Beetstra/Chemicals#Categorising chemicals (feel free to add things to that page, I'll have a look this evening). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I made an edit to that page. Mono-, di-, etc. are always used as part of the name when it comes to alphabetization, according to all the chemical catalogs lying around my lab (though certainly not authoratative, it is unaminous). --Ed (Edgar181) 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops .. I forgot to look at it, was planning to do that when this evening, while in the lab, but I got depressed by my 'failing but not failing' reactions, so decided to go home and have a beer. Thanks for looking into that for me! I'll delete the 'di-' etc. By the way, the category is generated from the pagename, so in a next run pages should be repaired. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question on Copyright Status of Chem Data

Hi Dirk, My question is, what is the copyright status of data (solubilities, mp, bp, critical points, vapor pressures, etc.) that we copy out of data handbooks like CRC or Lange's? Are we free to use it piecemeal in the chemboxes? What about an entire, say, solubility product table -- would that have a different copyright status than piecemeal data? Please let me know whatever knowledge you have on this. Thanks. Karlhahn 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Karl Hahn (I suppose that is your real name). I do not think that data is copyrighted (can hardly be, how can someone copyright the melting point of water?). I know the Rubberbible nicely references to all (?) the data it has collected. And well, it would be good to do that (so people can check the data, and Wikipedians are not liable for misinformation), but it may overcrowd the references section (and I must confess, I did not do that either). With whole I would put a reference into the references-list, it should not be a problem. You might want to bring this up at Wikiproject:Chemicals (maybe there is something written about that already, there must be something about chemical data &c. there). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aluminium

I know we are going to have a dispute about this, but before you revert Aluminium again, may I warn you of WP:3RR. For discussion on the spelling, lets go to the appropriate talk-page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I likewise warn you about WP:3RR. It is my understanding that removing a citation request without providing a citation is vandalism, and reverting vandalism is not a violation of 3RR. Your claim that it is clear from the next paragraph is unsubstantiated. If you revert, it is you who is in danger of 3RR, not I. —pfahlstrom 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets try. Do you have any suggestions as to where to find a reference for this claim? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All right. Discussion continues on Aluminium talk page. —pfahlstrom 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Free beer!

Thanks for all of your hard work in reorganising the suppliers on chemical pages!

Dirk, I just wanted to say that I (and others, I'm sure) are very grateful for your dedication and hard work. Switching over the supplier links from all of those pages to one standard page linked internally was an excellent idea, and you implemented it - one page at a time! If you ever make it over to Potsdam, New York, this coupon entitles you to one free beer (at my expense!). Many thanks, Walkerma 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to hear that! I am proud we are getting this far, now for the rest (of the compounds, data, layout, etc.). I'll try and visit Potsdam when I come to the States, but, if you ever make it to Cardiff, Wales, UK, let me know, we can have one on my expense (you're working hard yourself as well!). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Potsdam is pretty much off the beaten track, unless you go to Ottawa or Montreal. Cardiff is pretty close to my brother's place in Bristol, so that's not out of the question, though I thought Cardiff got destroyed when aliens took over the place!. Walkerma 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be ahead of your time .. I am still busy (whoops, now I spoiled the plan) .. :-)

By the way, technically spoken, the idea was twohunderdandthirteen onehunderdeightyeight twohundredtwentyseven hundredandnineteens, but I haven't heard from him since June... which reminds me .. there was another thing that I wanted to check using AWB. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stark spectroscopy

Dirk, I think you're right. The page is not really a disambig. Regards, Evgeny. It is OK. You could turn it into one, or do the two types of Stark spectroscopy have a common basis? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The common basis is the Stark effect, which relates the electric field applied and the splitting (or the broadening, if we're talking about a distribution of the field) of the atomic levels. So you either apply a known field and watch how the spectrum changes (and deduce something about atomic/molecular structure/bonds/...). Or, assuming the latter is known (usually can be calculated with a high precision for atomic/ionic species), by analyzing the changes in the spectrum you can say which fields are there - which in turn could mean e.g. diagnosing plasma density, or detecting plasma waves etc. So the page isn't truly disambig., but rather a starting point for explaining two different (albeit based on the same effect) techniques.

Say, microscope and telescope are based on the same effect; it's just the question from which side you're looking into it;-). --Evgeny

OK .. I get it. Then I would indeed describe the common basis in the article Stark spectroscopy, and let the other two describe the specifics. For me, the setup of the page was not a disambig. That's why I changed it. I'll follow this, looks interesting (though completely out of my field .. but it is one of the joys of the Wikipedia, seeing data being added to pages, and you think 'I did not know that ..'). Keep up the good work, and see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: ammonia

Hi Dirk, I didn't actually make the 2D image at ammonia, but I've been meaning to change it for a while - you're right, the bond ending in two dots, supposedly representing a lone pair, is confusing! New image is there.

Sorry for the delay in replying, too. I've been on holiday in Paris since Saturday.

Cheers

Ben 19:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the compliments! There was a fair queue for the Eiffel Tower, although not quite as long as the one in that photo, thankfully.

Let me know if you'd like any other images made.

Ben 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine Article

Dirk, can you please comment on why you do not want links to support groups on the benzodiazepine web page?

I would appreciate your comments and why you consider the links to be spam?

The support groups do not promote any products nor do they sell anything. They are there to help and provide additional information with benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms based on their collective experiences with this class of drugs.

Benzodiazepine support groups are a collaboration of people who have "been there done that" with regards to benzodiazepine use and understand tolerance and withdrawal from these drugs better than anyone else.

My intention is not to sell products but to provide helpful information to individuals seeking answers to their questions with regards to benzodiazepine drug withdrawal. I believe that links to people who truly understand what it’s like to use these drugs would be a great service to people seeking help.

I posted this in the discussion section of benzodiazepine. I would appreciate your comments. "—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.123.3 (talk • contribs) "

I'll answer on the talk of benzodiazepine --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal methods and support groups

I would like to create some links to some of the Internet's best known support groups for helping individuals get off of these drugs.

I am also considering creating a separate wikipedia page discussing known proven withdrawal taper methods that work. The two that I know of are Ashton's Valium cross-over taper method and water titration.

Would it be considered out of line or against wikipedias rules to create external links to the top support groups?

Would anyone object to placing an external link on the benzodiazepine page to support groups and if not why?

Would anyone object to placing a link on the benzodiazepine page that would link to an internal wikipedia page that would discuss known proven taper methods?

Would it be appropriate to create a short section in the benzodiazepine page that discusses known tapering methods?

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Benzodiazepine"

(benzobuddy) 8/31/06 "—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.123.3 (talk • contribs) "

I'll answer on the talk of benzodiazepine --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Venlafaxine

Thanks for the note. I am also a chemist, and I work for a large pharma company in the US, though not the one that developed venlafaxine. I also have personal experience with venlafaxine withdrawal (fucking awful, to be blunt). I agree that pages on chemicals should stick to describing the chemicals themselves, and your edits seem appropriate. We should keep a paragraph describing venlafaxine-specific discontinuation syndrome, and link to the entry on SSRI discontinuation syndrome for a larger discussion. This particular side effect is common to a class of drugs, though the intensity of venlafaxine withdrawal seems to be worse than other antidepressants.

One concern may be that venlafaxine is both a SSRI and an SNRI (selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), as well as a dopamine agonist, so a straight link to SSRI discontinuation may be a little misleading. I speculate that venlafaxine wihdrawal is aggravated because it acts on such a wide range of neurotransmitters, but that is neither here nor there.

Wiki entries on controversial drugs tend to attract a lot of POV diatribes, and I think that the anon editor whose rant I deleted will be back eventually. I actually agreed with the substance of his edit, but as it violates a number of POV and original research guidelines it had to go. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bahnstah

		The E=MC² Barnstar
		I happened to run into your name while perusing new pages, and I must say, I'm impressed -- not only by the quality of your contributions, but by the time you've put into the project, and the many languages you've been able to contribute in. Wikipedia is unquestionably better off for your help, and on behalf of the community, I'd like to recognize that with the EMC² Barnstar. Thank you! Luna Santin 09:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Completing Version 0.5 reviews

Hi Dirk, thanks for offering to help with version 0.5. We've made it over 1000 articles! Now we only have about four weeks left to review articles for Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Version_0.5/To_do and sign up for something? I'd like us to make sure we don't miss anything important. And once the end of the month rolls around we can take a well-deserved break...! There isn't much in the way of chemistry to review right now, but any help you can give would be most welcome. Thanks, Walkerma 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I can have a look, this month has a break for me already (going on holiday for a week next Saturday), so I could try and spend some time around that. Gets my mind of all the controversies I am running in now. I'll have a look! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The review process for core topics is mainly to check that the article is usable. Anything GA or above on the assessment scale should normally be OK, and most B-class articles are fine, as long as there are no horrible POV problems, atrocious English or similar problems. Some start-class articles are OK for core topics, if they are simply decent but short. All core topics have been assessed - look on the talk page of the article or look at the Core Topics list, so it shouldn't be too hard once you do a couple. Let me know if you need more help, and thanks again, Walkerma 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I revamped the list by Subst-ing in the bot table which nicely lists all of the articles already included. This was to save a lot of time doing that by hand, but it changes the procedure at Wikipedia:Version_0.5_Core_topics_review - now you add a 0.5 into the version column (or not if it fails), and add comments if needed. If you find the code for the table horrendous to work with, though, let me know and we can probably deconvolute it to something more readable. I'm simply trying to keep the time to a minimum. How about if you start at the top of the table - A/B-Class, and I'll work up from the bottom with the Starts (which involve more of a judgement call)? Thanks again, Walkerma 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your posting on my page relating to Sleep as an example. Here is some elaboration:

• Try starting at the first article in the table that does not have a 0.5 in the version column.
• Look over the article to see if it looks reasonable. For core topics, references are not required, though they are preferred. If the article looks like something we would be embarrassed by, fail it on quality. If it looks usable - not perfect, but it provides some useful information, then you can pass it. If there is a POV war or terrible English, fail it.
• Tag it with {{V0.5}} for a B-Class article. We can worry about categories later.
• Move on to the next article.

You shouldn't need to fail any articles on quality among the B-Class articles unless things have changed a lot, or if you see something horrendous that we missed. That should make it easy! Thanks again for your help. BTW, I hope we can reactivate assessments again at WP:Chem, and your expertise will be very valuable there. Walkerma 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at sleep. Your .."quite OK, some cleanup would be nice" sounds like a B. If you want to put in brief comments, you can add them by clicking the word "comments" in the V0.5 template and typing them on the page. These comments will eventually end up in the table, once I sort things out better. If you have a lot of detailed comments "This section needs copyedit, your need more refs for that part," etc, then you should put those on the article talk page. We only have a handful of active people at the moment, so we can't do a lot more review though we plan to compare the current and the assessed version before publication. You'll notice the Mathbot core topics table links to both the current and the assessed version directly (as does the chemistry table produced by Mathbot). We do plan to do more versions - I'm suggesting V0.7 for early next year, and working towards Version 1.0. We can't get every article perfect for 0.5, or even for 1.0, but reviewing, tagging and feedback all help encourage people to work on these things. As for locking, we may get to such things when we have stable versions, but things will have to be pretty basic for Version 0.5! Not sure if I answered everything, let me know if I can help more. Thanks, Walkerma 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer here, guess you are watching this page anyway.

Sleep was a B, indeed. While going through the article, you see some things while reading paragraphs, of which you think, these have a wrong style (in the case of sleep, I saw e.g. that the acronym REM (and NREM) were used a couple of times, before it stated Rapid Eye Movement). And there were more of those things. I really have to restrain myself to not repair these things, bacause then I might be busy for an hour (on average) with each article. Now there is still time for people to improve that, but say that sleep would have been one of the latest pages to be checked before a stable version was reached. I think that there should be a round of 'cleanup', where people are doing that type of copy-edit to an article before it goes into print (in a next round, a {{todo for V0.5}} on each selected article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The todo sounds a very interesting idea, if you can set that up I'd be grateful (I would probably get tangled up). For V0.5 itself, there will only be a handful of people available to do such copyedits, so we probably can't handle it for that. But if we can compile information on what needs to be done, that would be useful, and also leave it on the article talk page.

In the last week or so I've reviewed all the known elements (117 articles in all), and as a chemist it was hard sometimes to walk away from problems, but I can't fix everything in Wikipedia myself, or even everything in Version 0.5. What I do is (a) fix the really easy stuff and (b) list the harder stuff on the talk page if I see what can be done to fix it. The latter can be seen as "sowing seeds" for the future, delegating the cleanup to people who care and know about the subject. Look at this note from June 6, then look at the work done, including adding some refs. If your todo system can help with that, it would be very useful.

With only a handful of people on Version 0.5 right now, we can't realistically do that amount of cleanup before publication (it would take literally years, by which time people would give up the project!). However, this is only a quick test, and remember that the German and Polish releases include essentially EVERYTHING except stubs and vandalised articles- warts & all (though scripts remove obscenities); even for V0.5 our level of quality control is much higher (that's why we will release 1500 articles, and the Poles will release 250,000 this fall!) And your todo comments can initiate improvements that we'll see in version 0.7, 0.8, 1.0 etc. Thanks, Walkerma 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly cleanup is not for now, it is now senseless anyway, because we haven't even really sorted out which articles dó go into a stable version, and pages are changing too much anyway. I'll do some reviewing for now, when I have the time, and keep the 'todo for V0.5' in thought. I am willing to give that plan a go in 0.528, 0.68, or 0.84242 (or whatever subversion we get after this). A bot collecting the data on this 'todo-list' could give a feel for what really needs to be done. The items on this {{todo for V0.5}} should have less items than on {{todo}} (for articles that carry them), and could have predefined set of items that articles should go through For example with an item about the use of UK-English:

{{todo for V0.5 | Usage_English = UK | English = good }}

Articles that get a 'bad' on a certain item can be easily selected, and corrected (maybe people normally editing an article already do that, after which we only have to upgrade the status). But OK, I will keep this for version 0.74675. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Exothermic/endothermic

I am sorry, but I did not delete any information on the page, all the links are still there, I only rearranged them according to the Chemical Collaboration of the Month. I am reverting the revert. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beetstra, I'm sorry but your changes we're very sloppy. I do see some pieces of good cleaning but many changes you made were for the worst. For example, you changed:

Endothermic refers to a transformation in which a system receives heat from the surroundings: Q > 0.

to

For an endothermic system the end state has a higher energy than the start state: Q > 0

For one there's no such thing as an "endothermic system". Second, changes in the measures of the energy of a thermodynamic system between two thermodynamic states is quantified by internal energy U not heat Q. You removed useful see also's such as exothermic. These are just a few of many examples where changes were for the worse. Please help clean and add to the article but please don't make detrimental changes to articles which end up putting strain on your fellow collaborators. To clean-up you're supposed clean-up is going to take a lot of work on my part? I will have pause on this matter for the moment.--Sadi Carnot 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, there may be flaws in my edits, I tried to get things going. I am sorry if there are things that are really wrong, but then revert and help me with improving the article. The article as it was, was incomprehendible to a non-chemist, I hope someone will pick up the things I did wrong, or either revert and try to get the Chemistry Collaboration of the Month running, and move on from there, and I am willing to help (maybe I can actually learn someting from it)! By the way, the links in the see-also section are removed per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also, so they had to go. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm presently working to start a new article, i.e. Thermoeconomics; after finishing this, over the next week, I'll look closer at the exothermic and endothermic articles so to see how we can blend our efforts together. Talk later:--Sadi Carnot 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Chembox new}}

Yes, {{Chembox new}} has existed for several months now. It is a fully transclude version of the old chembox, with a few additions to cope with some non-standard boxes which I found along the way. All the values are added as parameters, eg MeltingPt=0 °C, and all are optional. It seems fairly stable, and is compatible with all the "old-new" chemboxes we have been using for the last year or so. Some editors have complained about table creep, so you may want to apply a little bit of self-censorship if you choose to use. However it has a number of advantages:

• The format of the table can be changed (relatively) easily if wanted;
• The table can be directly copied into foreign language projects (a recurrent request, given that we're doing all this work!)
• Minor style faults can be bot-corrected.

Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

0.5 todo

Dirk, thanks for this, it looks very helpful, I'll look more closely at this tonight. I'm not the best person at working with templates, so it'll take me a little while to work out everything about it, and think how to use it best. Cheers, Walkerma 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is just a simple setup, I think someone with more experience in V0.5 (or higher) could have a better look at it. Anywayz, I will see it after my holidays, I guess. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5