Well, somebody beat me to the category of military brat, but I went through last night and updated all of the brats on the List of famous military brats to have the category on their page. Well, the category has already been nominated for deletion. The reasoning is because it is a "non-neutral" term and parental occupation is irrelevant. Thus, I'm letting people who have contributed to the Military brat article know so that they can support keeping the category. Here is the link to the discussion [1] Balloonman 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rifleman
I don't understand why you removed the reference to the Müller glossary (but left the footnote pointing to it) in the Adduct page. The two glossaries listed are similar but the text is substantially different between the two. David.Throop 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious. As you show, they are the same document. Except, of course, that the text is substantially different, at least at the entry for adduct. Such is life. Even though the texts and diagrams differ, they are saying substantially the same thing. OK. I'll cite the Goldbook reference, and add Muller as an author to it. David.Throop 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rifleman, it'd be great if you wrote a summary after editing/reverting pages. I understand that popups negate summary of edits, but please write it in talk. Thanks. --218.186.9.3 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on Rifleman, if you're a Singaporean, you should know that Philip Yeo's comments caused more public anger than September 11, at least in Singapore. But the matter was allowed to go away quietly without even an apology; Philip Yeo claimed he was misquoted, which was a claim refuted by the Straits Times. I agree the comparison is NOR. When such big controversy such as the NKF controversy or this occurs, it is usually the rule for the person in charge to resign (to save face and admit wrongdoing), but he didn't. Personally, I think that it must be because of his links to PM Lee and MM Lee. (Similar to Mrs Goh Chok Tong, remember her support for Durai? Nothing happened to her, she also didn't apologise. SM Goh had to cover up for her.) I should also enlighten you that Singapore's press is tightly controlled by the government (of which Philip Yeo is part of). --218.186.9.3 12:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do the discussion only in Talk:Philip Yeo to avoid forks. --Rifleman 82 15:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I'm quite busy nowadays, retiring from Wikipedia for a short while so do what you want. :P --218.186.9.3 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all the typos! I will go home soon, but tomorrow I will try to do some of the other images needed for the page. I like new fast growing articles!--Stone 16:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem at all. Your additions are great! I'll wait for you to draw the reactions because it'll be more consistent. I have incorporated Reppe chemistry into a section at acetylene, and will use the same images as well.
I'm not sure if you have, but if you haven't, would you take a look at the German and English articles closely, to look out for factual or translation errors? I went on a limb here and there, and used context without really understanding the German text. --Rifleman 82 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw the addition of that link on N-Bromosuccinimide earlier, and was thinking about reverting, but there is a link in the section which gives similar info, so I decided to let it go. These links are a bit difficult, I see that there are 79 links to that site in the wikipedia, many similar to the link on N-bromosuccinimide. I don't know what to do with that .. remove (most of) them, or leave them in? Any suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dirk
I checked the NBS page and didn't see any link to organic-chemistry.org. I did a google and found them at ionic liquid and organic synthesis though. That is, unless you are referring to the link to organic syntheses. I personally believe that so long as they provide information which is not extensively duplicated in the article, it should stay. I won't really think of it as an advertisement. If there are too many external links though, only the best should stay. --Rifleman 82 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see I was not really clear, sorry. I was referring to the link you removed:
- which is somewhat similar to the one still there:
- there are 79 others in the wikipedia to organic-chemistry.org. The way I have seen these links added is in general spammy .. only addition of the link, seems promotional to me. But then, if www.orgsyn.org is OK, the other should also be mentioned. Or both should go. I do concur with the point of view, cut down on external links, they are not necessary. IMHO, both could be linked via a link on wikipedia:chemical sources template, and that should be enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if we can include them in the chemical sources template, it would be good. Both sites are actually rather good sources for information, and it'd be a shame to lose them on principle just because they are being spammed into wikipedia. --Rifleman 82 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have included them both (organic-chemistry was already there). I'll leave it for now, maybe it can be changed when we have a special:chemicalsources available. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rifleman, with all due respect, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about using an image with German wording. Really, it should'nt take more than a few minutes for the original uploader of that image into Commons to translate it into English and and to produce an English version. Why not try to contact him? Or failing that, have you tried to find anyone who can translate it? If I had the English translation, I could use Microsoft's Paint program to produce an English version. Regards, - mbeychok 07:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's supposed to be an open-ended project that concentrates more on expansion of stubs and finding reliable sources on potentially-problematic articles. You can put those articles you think need sourcing on the project page. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:MATADOR (weapon).gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for Peer review of Eicosanoid. Since you've helped with some of the associated pages, I'd like your input.David.Throop 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a wonderful image, however if we agree that ALS is equivalent to ammonium dodecyl sulfate, the tail of the molecule should have 12 carbons. The image displays a molecule that has only 10. This is my only concern with the image, I believe I have modified it to have 12 carbons, however I am not the best at image manipulation. If you can find an image with a 12 carbon chain in the public domain or modify the images we have to have that, I'd be all for it.AlexUF 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeeh .. another one that breaks. Indeed, templates cannot carry parameters with certain characters in them, they break the layout. I encountered this in {{SMILES}}, SMILES contain in some exotic cases a ], which closes the URL where the parameter is imbedded in (the parser does not know whether it was in a template at that point anymore, and things become ugly. It can be solved partially, by putting a 'urlencode' around the parameter in the URL, but that does not work for what the template is displaying (yes, it works, but then noone will understand what is displayed). The same apparently goes for the DOI-template, which I cannot repair (template is locked). Hope this explains .. now to find a solution .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- urlencode does not help here, I just tried to urlencode it in the document, the link then contains the .. err .. right characters, but one gets encoded wrongly by that function. No solution here for the moment .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you made a special template for peer review. I was looking around and saw Template:Wikiproject_MCB, it has the peer review build into their own template. Maybe also something for us? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Dirk. Yes I did. A quick and dirty solution. I've seen the MCB page, and I'll be glad to give it a go at combining the peer review with our {{chemistry}} banner. Give me a few days and I'll see if I can make it work. I'm definitely not going to do it like the MCB since I'm not confident with the "esoteric syntax", but I'll think if I can find a way. Cheers! --Rifleman 82 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I was thinking of incorporating our own review into Wikipedia:Peer review (the listings, for more exposure), since it won't affect us much. However, seeing some rather negative comments about science peer review on previous attempts, I think we should let our own peer review get more established first. --Rifleman 82 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to go into the esoterics, just copy and paste :-). I think the P.S. is a good plan, though I do like the idea of getting external input, I know we might be 'blind' to our own writing sometimes, I know that I did not see mistakes anymore when I wrote my thesis, it all made sense to me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... copy and paste it is then! I'll take a look at it later. Agree with you on blind - reading my past work is a painful experience, spotting all those errors I made then. --Rifleman 82 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the best frame of mind for getting dizzy with
. I'll try again in the morning. --Rifleman 82 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Morning .. oh yeah, you're in Singapore, right? I haven't been playing with {{and}} yet, maybe I could use it in some of the {{chembox new}} parts .. did not know it existed. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, just wanted to say thanks for all your work over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review - very useful, nicely done. Things are getting busy again for me, but I'll try to help whenever I can. Any luck with that solubility graph? Cheers, Walkerma 05:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Martin. You're very welcome. Things getting busy for me too. Solubility graph - I found that Excel can plot a nice curve. What screws it up is all the missing entries which make it look funny. I'm still looking at it but it's on the backburner for now. My apologies. --Rifleman 82 15:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did what any teacher does when stuck with software - I asked one of my students, who showed me in 10 minutes how to solve the problem with Excel. Look for some more professional-looking graphs soon! You have to do "Chart - Source Data" then select each cell individually rather than just selecting the entire range of cells - then it works. Thanks, Walkerma 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(resetting indents)
Ah, I've found a better way. Do as before - select the entire area, without deselecting blanks. Click TOOLS --> OPTIONS --> CHART (Tab), plot empty cells as interpolated. Much easier. --Rifleman 82 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rifleman, I've finished messing with alkanes for the night - please see my comments on the talk page - I had a edit conflict with you earlier (my first!) so posted my changes to nomenclature on the talk page for you to review and add as you see fit. -- Quantockgoblin 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for cleaning up 'Sources of Singapore law'. I didn't realize there was a template available for Singapore statutes. Is there a list of Singapore-related templates anywhere? Other articles you might want to re-template if you have time and the inclination to do so include 'Law of Singapore' and 'Penal Code (Singapore)'. Jacklee 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jack. It's my pleasure, w.r.t. cleanup. There wasn't a template for Singapore statutes prior. I just created it today in response to your article. I'll use the template for those, not a problem. Is the presentation of the reference correct? I'm not a laywer so I'm not sure of your citation styles. It can be changed if need be. --Rifleman 82 07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow! Cool. I like the way you've linked the template to on-line versions of the statutes. Will there be a problem if the URLs of those statutes changes?
Statutes that have chapter numbers are cited like this: "Application of English Law Act (Cap. 7A, 1994 Rev. Ed.)". However, not all statutes are assigned chapter numbers. Some statutes only get chapter numbers after a number of amendments have been made and it is decided to publish a revised edition, while statutes are not deemed important enough to be included in the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore. In these cases, the statutes are cited thus: "Application of English Law Act 1993 (No. 35 of 1993)". It should still be possible to locate the statute on Singapore Statutes Online. I think the template you've created is fine. Cheers, Jacklee 12:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the template since: {{Singapore Statute}}. Do take a look. I've explained the syntax, so that it is now possible to give the name of the particular act on top of the chapter number. Should the title of the act take precedence? Right now, the title is an optional parameter, and is given in parantheses. No problems with the non-numbered statutes. A "hard" link (a copy-paste link, instead of a template-number link) can be used.
- Right now, I'm trying to find the articles such as Misuse of Drugs Act (Singapore), Capital punishment in Singapore, and Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi which make references to our statutes, and substitute with the template for a more consistent referencing style. Perhaps if you see any, you can help too.
Question: since electronic articles are easiliy searchable, would you agree to condensing all the references to statutes to the main reference? I.e. instead of Id. or Ibid., section whatever, can we use the same footnote? I think there is a difference between the academic citation style and the web-style due to the inherent differences in the media. --Rifleman 82 13:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual way of referencing an Act of Parliament is to put the title of the Act first. We don't usually put the words "Singapore Statutes" in front. Perhaps you can tweak the template again so that it automatically provides the name of the Act in front, like this: "Application of English Law Act, Cap. 7A" and the year of the revised edition of the Act can be added manually by authors of articles if they wish. I don't think it does any harm if the title of the Act appears in the main text and again in the footnote.
- I think this can only be done to a certain extent and perhaps not in all cases. Where I have used ibid. it is quite safe to refer to the first occurring footnote, as ibid. means that the two citations are identical. However, in the case of id. and op. cit., the citation is to the same work but to a different part of the work. For instance, it could be a reference to a different page of the same book, or a different section of the same Act of Parliament. Even though electronic resources are searchable, don't you think it would be helpful to provide a more precise reference? For instance, in 'Penal Code (Singapore)', there are references to individual sections of the Penal Code. In my view it doesn't make much sense to condense all these references into a single footnote referencing the Penal Code on-line, otherwise users will have to browse through more than 500 sections of the Code to locate a particular section.
- I suppose the quickest way to look for articles relating to Singapore law is to visit the '[[Category:Singaporean law]]'. I've put articles relating to Singaporean legislation in a subcategory called '[[Category:Legislation of Singapore]]'. Cheers, Jacklee 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rifleman
I posted a peer review request for Abbas Kiarostami. It is very kind of you if you could take a look at the article (if you are interested in reviewing such articles) and comment on it. Thanks. Sangak 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My dear sir, not meaning to be rude, but kindly quote me the wikipedia guideline that justified the removal of Math-based equations on the Hydrogen Chloride Page. Thanks a lot.
(PS Many other pages are having their equations converted to Math-Based too.) — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 02:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The appropriate forum for this matter to be decided is Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, where there are Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines. It makes no mention of mathml, though it on the pages on my watchlist, mathml changes are usually reverted because its use is very jarring compared with the existing text. Specifically, the type faces are different from the text, and the font sizes are often larger when there are superscripts. If the use of superscripts and subscripts can do the job, why complicate matters? --Rifleman 82 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant discussion is here, though unfortunately we never wrote this into the style guidelines. We probably should! Walkerma 03:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link, Martin. Didn't know you watched my usertalk. :) I suppose you got my message. Tweaking that the excel setting once is easier than selecting many cells invidiually. --Rifleman 82 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks, though I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. I want to do a graph on solubility vs. polarity of solvent that uses it. Cheers, Walkerma 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Martini reference actually is not a web resource, thus cite web may not be the best. It is actually a paper from a journal, Vesalius (never heard of it myself), and is not published by pubmed though they index it. Also, maybe you can consider using PMIDs instead of dumping the entire link from your browser. You can take a look at what I did from here: [2]. Hope it helps. --Rifleman 82 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing that, the article has so many references and they all bloody needed fixing when I found it, I may have made a few careless mistakes. Feel free to edit any others you feel can be improved, you've helped a lot so far! Oh, and while I'm at it, thanks for the support on WP:ACID. I really wanna push for featured on this one, woop! :) Jack · talk · 17:02, Sunday, 25 February 2007
I noticed that you were involved in writing several high quality articles on science. Just in case you have time and interest in the topic:
I would like to have your comments on my work for further improvement. Any suggestion will be very much appreciated. Thanks.Sangak 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
#c-Tragic_Baboon-2007-01-18T19:57:00.000Z-Image:MATADOR_(weapon).gif){kind=link}