User talk:Mandel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- User talk:Mandel/Achive 1 - 2005
- User talk:Mandel/Achive 2 - 2006
Contents |
[edit] Tony Leung
Hi, I notice that you have started adding material to Tony Leung Chiu Wai. Please note:
- Personal quotes have previously been removed from this article to Wikiquote, see [1]
- You have left some unfinished sentences and pointers at the end of your work a few days ago. Please tidy this up soon. In future you may want to enclose such work-in-progress between <!-- and --> so that they are saved but do not appear in the article.
- Please also add references to identify your sources. Thanks, Fayenatic london 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Celsius edit
Your recent edit to the Celsius article had several inaccuracies and needed to be immediately corrected. First, you had mentioned the "freezing point" of water. There is a difference between the melting point and freezing points of water. Although many people consider them to be the same, at the millikelvin level, they are different. Accordingly, precise thermometry experiments used to always use the melting point of water for defining the Celsius scale. Today, ITS-90 makes use almost exclusively of the melting points of various elements. The difference between the two is, of course, defined as whether heat is going into the sample during the measurement (melting) or is going out of the sample (freezing). Secondly, the Celsius scale is only approximately 100 divisions between the melting and boiling points. This is an old, outdated definition; since 1954, the Celsius scale has been defined by two entirely different points. As a result of this new definition, there are, today, only 99.9839 degrees between the melting and boiling points of water. The proper definition of the Celsius is precisely covered by the very next paragraph of the article. There is certainly no need for an outdated and scientifically incorrect "definition" immediately before the paragraph that gives the proper one. Your effort at getting the value "100" into the article may be well-intentioned, but can certainly wait for the very next paragraph, which properly addresses the issue by stating as follows:
- “Until 1954, 0 °C on the Celsius scale was defined as the melting point of ice and 100 °C was defined as the boiling point of water under a pressure of one standard atmosphere; this close equivalency is taught in schools today.”
Also, Anders Celsius's contribution is overstated when one writes that he developed “the prototype” of the scale. Celsius developed a backwards version of the scale where zero was the boiling point! Accordingly, it's more accurate to state that he developed a "similar" scale. The contribution you made appears that it may have come right out of a textbook of some sort. However, the textbook you chose seems to have been geared to a scientifically entry-level reader and, unfortunately, has several errors and inaccuracies. It was certainly not an encyclopedic resource. Please delete this message at your next convenience. Greg L 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I moved this all to the Celsius talk page. I see you are making contributions to cinema, music, literature, sports and Chinese. I don't intend this to come across as insulting but your understanding of science isn't as developed as it needs to be in order to make factually correct, encyclopedic improvements to technical articles. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know jack about cinema, music, literature, sports and Chinese and haven't made one single contribution to such articles. There have been long, vitriolic battles over weeks and months and the product you see on that page has satisfied all the contributors to date. But these contributors were all scientifically minded. I'm an engineer and scientist and have corresponded with literally dozens of Ph.D. scientists while working on temperature-related articles on Wikipedia. I also know that I am a total dill-weed when it comes to the arts. I don't think that makes me stupid. It just means that's not where my interests lie and I therefore don't know much about it. Please don't make a battle out of the edits you made to the Celsius article; they were simply i-n-c-o-r-re-c-t. Greg L 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary
Hi, please kindly use edit summary to indicate prod and afd, thanks. --Vsion 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edit to English language
Hello. Thank you for your recent edit to English language. Your edit included one or more links to the page Spanish, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to English language to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Exercise Northstar V
It's for saving time, 2hr or 5 days, the end result would be the same. I contributed most of the content, and agree to merge. Just pretend that you didn't raise the afd, instead we agree in merging after discussion. Be cool! --Vsion 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
I protected PRoC, but I did not protect Gautama Buddha. That article has not been hit that frequently in recent days. Nishkid64 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DBS iB Secure Device
Not it's fine for AfD - I see someone has updated the DBS Bank page to include it (maybe you) which I hadn't realised at the time I reverted it.
--PeterMarkSmith 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antimony discussion
Mandel, may I suggest that you calm down and actually read what I wrote?
What is wrong about William Shotyk's publication is not the measurements he reported—I think the measurements themselves are probably accurate—but his apparent suggestion that the time dependence of the increase might be linear. If one reports concentrations at two different times, laymen like you immediately infer that the concentration will keep increasing at the same speed. In fact, the increase will not be linear, but will slown down. Indeed, the rates of chemical processes are usually not linear.
Since you did not understand my previous attempt to explain this, let me try again without math. For any substance diffusing out of a solid, at first the speed is fast, and then it gets slower and slower as time goes on. In other words, first the molecules that were close to the surface of the solid come out. They are able to do so quickly because they do not have to travel far through the solid. As time goes on, the molecules coming out have had to travel further through the solid and that takes longer. The natural law governing this is Fick's Second Law of Diffusion.
For substances coming out of plastics, Fickian diffusion has been shown to be true for all cases studied (in those journal references I suspect you did not bother to look at; certainly you did not understand them). There is no reason to suspect that antimony might disobey the Fick's Second Law. (As it is against Wikipedia policy to cite unpublished work, that is the best I can do on this point.)
The upshot of the slowing of the rate is that we never get anywhere near the allowable concentration in water, not in one year, not in ten years and not in 500 years. I have no doubt that Shotyk will eventually discover how the increase is slowing, so the antimony concentration stays in the safe range, as he keeps measuring his samples over the next 2 or 3 years. I do wonder whether he will bother to publish his results when he gets to that point.
You are apparently also worried that no one is taking the complete exposure toward antimony into consideration. Taking such things into consideration is what public health authorities do when they set standards. Let me explain how toxicoligists and government agencies arrive at "allowable concentrations". First, they take data from all the studies and determine the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL), which is the amount that you should be able to ingest daily all life long with no ill effect. Then they divide the NOAEL by a large safety factor (100 or 1000, depending on the factors involved with the data quality) and the result of that is called the "tolerable daily intake" (TDI) or sometimes also the "acceptable daily intake" (ADI). Then the toxicologists consider the various kinds of exposure possible (air, food, water, etc.) and set allowable concentration limits for each type of exposure based on that. So, the various kinds of exposure are taken into consideration and in addition there is a large safety factor. Having a large safety factor is important, for as you noted, if we err it should be on the side of caution.
So your marathon runner may keel over from heat exhaustion, but he won't from antimony, even if the bottles are a tad old.
Have a good day.
CindyB 17:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chekhov is important
This comment of yours and some other people's posts about Anton Chekhov eventually got to me and stirred me to action.
Should I add a cleanup sign to the article. Looks like this article has good use for cleanup and research. Chekhov is important.
I've now worked the article up to what I hope is a decent standard and submitted it for Featured Article. If you're still active on Wikipedia, I'd be interested in your thoughts. qp10qp 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comments on football articles
I just wanted to stop by and show my appreciation for your comments and good suggestions on improving football articles. I could not agree more with you when you said that football articles don't need to be long, but they should be accurate. Thank you for the valuable feedback, keep it up! --ChaChaFut 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
