User talk:Nick Y.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: Redshift

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.
--Fasten 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken on the case and it seems to be going well so far.--Nick Y. 00:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy re mass spectroscopy

What is it you would like me to do? It might be best to await the conclusion of the mediation, and then see whatever else you need, but if you need some help now, let me know. Pedant 05:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets let the mediation run it's course and see where you stand then. Meanwhile I'll read up on the issue... Pedant 03:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next step

OK, if it's come to the point that the small group of editors involved cannot settle the issue collegiately, you could consider turning the matter over to the community at large, to see if there is some consensus available at that level. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the page to start with that, read what's on that page, (especially "Alternatives to RfC" and if you think it would be appropriate, file a Request for Comment there, following the intructions on that page.

Take your time and try to express yourself as clearly and succinctly as possible in your request, and provide links to whatever you need to make your point quickly. Once you file the RfC, don't get wrapped up in the discussion, just file the request and let everyone else comment on it, that will help you avoid appearing to be argumentative. You and I both should avoid interfering with the request for comment process until comments are finished, then we go on from there, based on the community's consensus... Let me know if you need anything more. Pedant 20:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mass-to-charge-ratio

Well, if it is a proposal to change a formula spelling, then it belongs to a website, not to an encyclopedia (which is only allowed to accept scientifically valid thruth). If these formula work (it does not look quantum research), then it is probably just a spelling variation. Coming from computer programming, we are absolutely free to use any letter, variable name, formula re-spelling. I noticed this article is battled around. NOR takes (IMO) to introduce a previously unknown concept. If this spelling variant was not previously used (in science publication), and is not possible to understand without science background, then it is probably not encyclopedic. If it gets through, then it may become encyclopedic. I have made up Light_frequency_waves, i figured out it is really used by a few. It does not introduce a new concept. It really helps. It would be quite pedantic to battle this article, only to find it used in some publications. The mass-to-charge article looks much more tiny than mass spectronomy. I am interested by which policies people try to cancel this article, hence this writing. I don't know much about the formula/concept itself. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backyard Wildlife Habitat AfD

Hello,

I noticed that your statement on this AfD has been modified by an anonymous user. I was going to revert the change, but I thought I would check first to see if you had really made the modification yourself without first logging in. ScottW 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to double check. Thanks. ScottW 18:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Hyman AfD

Hi Nick, thanks for your comment. James hasn't just worked on a few films + videos (read above discussion on the 'James Hyman' post), he's been an MTV presenter and is an Xfm London DJ, presenter, would appreciate you ammending your post. Thanks.


[edit] Roarie Dimitrioss

Why would you deny people from Canada to have access to researching this individual. He appears on the government of Ontario and Government of Canada registry for active lobbyists. I think this needs to be opened up to a wider discussion. How can that take place. Also, it should be encouraged to review already public information on google and on the government of Ontario Integrity Commission website at: http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Integrity/RegistrationGeneral.nsf/PublicFramesWeb?OpenPage

Also, a number of collegues also have entries in Wikipedia including: Leslie Noble, Deb Hutton, Gerald Caplan, Ian Brodie, Rod Love

Why is this individual singled out? Perhaps he is not in the right category on wikipedia?

Thank you for your help and insight.

Oakville123 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duong Trieu Vu afd

Hello Nick. One of your complaints about non-English has been rectified,as I have translated this article. I also believe that you may want to rethink your second obervation. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 07:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Request on physics wikiproject page

I might be able to help you on some of the interfacial articles. I've been in both chemistry and physics departments throughout my career, although currently my research is in biophysics. Salsb 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Interactions between Matter

Physics and chemistry are the interactions between matter, Chemistry is the organization of different matter giving the typical spacings, bonding energies, and structures, while physics tends to focus on the fields and potentials that create those structures. Quantum Chemistry blends the two but is beyond the scope of this article. You have mistakenly lumped physics and chemistry together claiming that chemistry is the science of matter at the atomic scale. While I understand that the goal is a simplification that will help an early learner appreciate the details, polarization, spin, precession, and other attributes at the atomic level are rarely associated with chemistry. Chemistry tends to deal with the matter - matter interactions. Tmcsheery 21:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't have any problems with any of the comments you made. Are we coming to a consensus? I think I cleaned up the ones you didn't like. Although now someone doesn't seem to understand how atomic weights are assigned as a statistical weighted average based on the local distribution of isotopes. I shudder because explaining that to someone is either impossible unless they should have already known it. Sigh. Are we coming to an agreement on what should be on the entry level page? Most of your comments are for very specific specialties and I don't think addressed anywhere on Chemistry, but likely on other branches. I'm working on an atomic magnetometer and have no idea what I'm doing, but finding out that no-one else does either. That's what makes research fun. Tmcsheery 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Concensus is a good thing. Turns out the person who didn't like Statistical knows way more chemistry than I do, but feels those things are absolutes. Sigh. I wonder if they will update the periodic table when someone gets to realizing that the distributions of Isotopes isn't what they thought it was back then. Some of these things are more history than science, like how many planets do we have. Tmcsheery 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass spec / Spectroscopy

I put a comment about this subject on the WikiProject Spectroscopy. --Tjr9898 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike AFD

Hey Nick,

This AFD is over, but I still wanted to get in touch with you about what we talked about. I had said:

What do you believe "game guide" means? I'd be interested in hearing your personal definition, based off of the following policy:
Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.

I was still hoping to hear from you about what you think "game guide" means in the context of WP:NOT. Hope to hear from you. Thanks! TomTheHand 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop you vandalizm

Nick, it is now time that you realize that you are the one that is wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to change the rules established by the wider scientific community. You lost a request for deletion, you lost this case, now it is time to stop your vandalizm. Thanks. --Kehrli 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Nick, I have been told that your constant placing of tags without justification does not qualify for vandalism and is not sufficient reason to place a warning. Warning is hereby withdrawn by --Kehrli 18:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop you vandalizm

Sorry Nick, I have been told that your constant placing of tags without justification does not qualify for vandalism and is not sufficient reason to place a warning. Warning is hereby withdrawn by --Kehrli 18:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helping with arbitration

You can help with arbitration by presenting evidence of the use of the contested notation in scientific journals. Fred Bauder 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred, there is a new legislation that the term mass-to-charge ratio is depricated for m/z. Since this legislation is very new, it is of course still possible to find many articles using m/z as a mass-to-charge ratio. You find such articles (as well as papers wherr m/z is used for other quantities) in the m/z article. --Kehrli 13:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i'm a little hesitant to bring this to your attention...

... because i imagine that User:Kehrli is watching your talk page (and i want to fly under his radar), but i think you might want to follow his contribs back a little ways. he made some changes to Physical constant that appears to have something to do with his thesis on dimensionality that he was pushing w.r.t. mass spectrometry. clearly when he says that "...everyone knows that mass spectrometers measure the mass to charge ratio - so why the fuss about mass numbers and charge numbers instead of just using plain mass and charge? ... Mass spectrometers measure the physical quantity mass to charge ratio which is not dimensionless. This is a simple fact." or that "Contrary to wide belief, physiscal constants do not depend on systems of units." [1] or to fail to differentiate between a fundamental physical constant vs. a dimensionful physical constant (ibid.) and to remove content that spells out that difference, is indicative of some fundamental misconception on his part. Of course, in a similar manner as counting tick marks on a ruler when we measure length or counting ticks of a clock when we measure time, when any physical instrument measures anything, the net reading on that instrument resulting from such measurement is dimensionless. then, by interpretation of the instruments design or specification - by knowing what the like-dimensioned standard that was used by the instrument to compare to the quantity being measured, we humans then consider that quantity dimensioned in terms of the dimension of the measurement standard. i doubt that it's any different regarding MS, but i'll leave that battle/discussion to you and the experts. i'm just an electrical engineer. r b-j 00:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your note. i did write a response on that same page. r b-j 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z. Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation. Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 18:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for drawing my attention to this. I will look at it in a couple of weeks. I am at the other side of the world from my home and about to leave on a fell-walking trip for a week. I doubt I'll be back on WP untill next week. --Bduke 07:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for your work in cleaning up Thomson (unit), Mass spectrum, and Mass-to-charge ratio. I feel you've taken a fair and balanced approach to presenting the various points of view. Alchemistmatt 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precautionary Principle section for Inclusion in the parabens article.

"Hello",

I am the previous 63 IP editor who added info to the parabens article to make it more complete. I think the info about 'precautionary principle' belongs in the parabens article because it represents a current shift or movement away from parabens along with other type ingredients. A lot of people reject this movement. Others embrace it. Shopping at a health food store is a good idea. Now even Walmart has a large organic section. Anyways, there are two users who disagree with me about. If I add this info one of them will eventually erase it. If not today then next week. I am happy with my contributions but sad it got erased because others disagree. If you agree you can add this info back in. This is not a POV dispute. This is about other edtors do not want people to know all the facts. Also, I would like to add a some more sentences that were erased so that the article will explain all sides of the issues regarding parabens. The current article is completely bias right now. This is more than obvious. Check the history of the parabens article. This is a one-sided revert war. Wikipedia is about explaining all sides of an issue. Other are reverting the TRUTH! --Frown Smiles 00:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Nick,

Thanks for your quick comments. Let me enlighten you that about 90% of all cosmetics sold at healh food stores are PARABEN FREE. I just proved my point, anyways. Also, soybean contain phytoestroegens which mimick estrogen. Soy may cause cancer. I would avoid soy. One comman mistake new shoppers make when they shop at the health food stores is eating soy. There is a significant move away from parabens by companies who are making a reasonable and concerned effort to offer safer alternatives. At the forefront of this effort are cosmetic campaigns informing consumers about the potential risk!!! I have researched my facts thoroughly. Obviously you have not. Please, next time do a little research and brush up on your facts. You are not aware of the big shift away from parabens this very year of 2006. 2006 represents a big move away from parabens. I recommend you check your facts before jumping to conclusions. Already very few companies in the health food industry use parabens. Call up any health food store and/or the cosmetic campaigns and get the facts about the movement. And thanks again for your comments. --Frown Smiles 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Nick,

The parabens article is shaping up very nicely now. I contacted the big guys upstairs. It is being monitored and updated right now by great experienced editors. The info I added is already in the article about the cosmetic campaigns raising awareness about potentially toxic ingredients. Safer cosmetics is about wise decision making. You can make your own wise choices. A safer shampoo with eesential oils, mild surfactants, and safer preservatives. Or big cosmetic industry: synthetic fragrances. harsh surfactants, synthetic colors, and who knows what else!? Tell the parabens to take a walk. The green movement is here to stay!!! I hope that helps. Knowledge is Power!!! --Frown Smiles 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The parabens article has been updated!

If you read now I think it is a NPOV now. Some article sections are long but detail is sometimes good. The article explains parabens are considered safe but their are recent studies that bring about conerns. Anyways, it is always better-to-be-safe-than-sorry approach. Tell the paraben to take a walk. Please explain in detail if you think there is any hint POV going in either direction. Adding citations is not my cup of tea. As far as I am concerned the article is completed. Time to move on to other articles. --Frown Smiles 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Added Comment: If you take a look and read other articles on preservatives, you will soon realize the paraben article is the only one that is at a higher level of accurracy, nuetrality, and completeness. After creating a firestorm and raising my voice did this happen. When I was quiet nothing happened. I lost some respect but I got what I wanted in the end. Does the end justify the means? That is the question. Its not how you start, it is how you finish. --Frown Smiles 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The validity of the parabens article.

Let me enlighten you a little about Wikipedia. Many articles on Wikipedia have absolutely no references whatsoever at all. About 20% of article have no references according to Wikipedia. No body is DELETING information in other articles just because their is not a reference. Second, the onus is not on me to prove anything. Citations are necessary but CONSENSUS has been securied! Wikipedia is about users contributing information to their level of abiliity. I am not going to go on a wild goose chase hunt just to find some references in a few dusty books. What is most important is their is a consensus among contributors. In addition, when explaining about POV you have to explain in detail. Which sentence or sentences do you think needs to be enhanced to make it a better article. In what way. Give examples. Which sentence? Making broad statements does not help. I read the section again. It is very short. The first sentence explains about the scientific community. Second sentence, explains about further studies are necessary. Third sentence, merely explains the state of the industry: ...the cosmetic industry believes for the most part most if not all formulary ingredients are safe whereas the cosmetic campaign beleives some ingredients could have a potential for risk. The facts speak for themselves. Mission accomplished. The proof is in the truth Frown Smiles 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello my friend, Take a look at other articles on preservatives. The parabens article is the most detailed and complete.

Click to the right>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Preservatives <<< or Click to the left. Well, I proved my point yet again.

Compare how remarkable the parabens article is to the little info there is on the other preservative articles. Oh. And yes. Thanks again for your suggestions.

--Frown Smiles 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

You are the man! Keep it going. You rock!!! Your lyrics (factuality) wakes up spirits. My frown is upside down!?! //(:_._:)\\ Frown Smiles 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Nick,

I would like to let you in on a little secret. I never contributed to the parabens article before until after you made your contributions. I bet my friend that I could make someone add info to an article even though that editor NEVER did before. Thanks for making me win my BET!!! Why do you think I continued to comment here. Thanks for the money from my winning bet. Your super. Ha Ha Ha. --Frown Smiles 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 100,000- times sentecne does not seem to be accurrate. Please check.

Click on link for reference: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-para.html

FDA is aware that estrogenic activity in the body is associated with certain forms of breast cancer. Although parabens can act similarly to estrogen, they have been shown to have much less estrogenic activity than the body’s naturally occurring estrogen. For example, a 1998 study (Routledge et al., in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology) found that the most potent paraben tested in the study, butylparaben, showed from 10,000- to 100,000-fold less activity than naturally occurring estradiol (a form of estrogen). Further, parabens are used at very low levels in cosmetics. In a review of the estrogenic activity of parabens, (Golden et al., in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2005) the author concluded that based on maximum daily exposure estimates, it was implausible that parabens could increase the risk associates with exposure to estrogenic chemicals.

10,000 to 100,000 times is problably more accurrate!

The effect of butylparaben is approximately 100,000 times waker than estradiol, measured at a dose level which was 25,000 times higher than is used to preserve products. << Inaccurrate sentence.

The effect of butylparaben is approximately 10,000 - 100,000 times weaker than a estradiol (a similar form of estrogen). Further, their low concentrations level is under 1% in cosmetic formulations which make them safe at low levels. << My recommendation for accurracy.

The part about meaured at a does level that was 25,000 times high does not make any sense to me. I have to question that part.

Since chemistry or science is not my expertise I will need experinced editors to clarify the facts. I will let you review the facts and the reference and decide.

Thank you. --63.17.65.211 21:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Thanks" for your Contributions to the Rembrandt of Preservative Articles.

I want the parabens article to be a little more detailed.

>>>Occurrence<<<

Some parabens occur naturally in plants and some insects. <<< Reference needed -- big time.

I need a full serving of references. This is huge to find a reference.

The question remains. Will Nick get in on the action? It is yet to be seen.

The occurrence section has vanished! I cannot put it back in without a valid reference.

I tried searching online for a reference but without success. Pleeeease, rise to action.

The parabens article is not written in stone. The future is yet to be determined.

Make your own destiny.

If you know of any references please help. I understand this is a tough cookie. I want to bite but I can't chew it very good.

You must be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time. Thanks. --63.17.47.202 23:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, you are right with your additional edits!

Greeting Nick,

Its now time for me to come clean.

The reason I stopped using products that contain parabens was because of the scary e-mail.

Parabens may contribute to an increased risk of breast cancer (oh scary). After I read the e-mail I freaked !


Reference: Environmental Working Group: Skin Deep Report

http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep2/report.php?type=INGREDIENT&id=105730

EWG is one of the major players who are circulating the mass e-mails.

Thanks. --63.17.47.202 23:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)



[edit] You are an Artist and Wikipedia is your Canvas.

You are applauded for your edits of brilliance throughout Wikipedia!!!

Global Editor Award in Honor of the Great Nick
Global Editor Award in Honor of the Great Nick

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina

Thoughts on having this deleted?

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the merge of Secondary ion mass spectrometry.WVhybrid 02:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with similar themes and release dates AfD

Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colateral Autoblock

Dynamic IP I am not this person. The problem will disappear for me on reboot, but is achieving nothing.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 128.115.27.10 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Could you help with some research?

(apologies for the multiple edit i forgot to put a title in!)

Hello Nick Y,

I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the University of Bath, UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage here.

I've been trawling through the MediationCabal archives and noticed your rather splendid redshift mediation. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating? It'd help me out no end!

If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.

Many thanks

Matt
MattB2 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello Nick Y

Thanks for agreeing to help me with my research.

What I would like to do, would be to ask you a few open-ended questions about your experiences of mediating in a text-based environment, and then chase up any further questions raised by your answers. You can write as much or as little as you want for each answer.

I'd also ask that you'd give your consent for me to report and/or quote part of your answers in my thesis and any subseqent publications. Obviously I will make the information as anonymous as possible (blanking out names and other identifiable references).

If you're still willing to take part, let me know and i'll provide you with the first raft of questions.

Thanks again,

Matt
MattB2 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Sounds good.--Nick Y. 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few questions for you . . .

Ok Nick Y - here's the questions. . .

What I would like to do is ask a few background questions, a few open-ended questions, and then, based on your answers to these, i'd like to ask a few more detailed ones.

Background

1) How long have you been mediating for Wikipedia?
2) Were you given any specific training to be a mediator for Wikipedia?
3) Do you have any other experience of mediation/dispute resolution (if so, what is it and for how long)?

General

1) What factors do you find makes a dispute particularly difficult to mediate?
2) What makes a good mediator - e.g skills, attitude?
3) What difficulties are posed by mediating through technology?
4) In what way does technology help you mediate?

Answer as much or as little as you want to. If you could post the answers on my talkpage User:MattB2, or e-mail them to me via the address on my homepage [2], that would be great. However, i'm happy for you to post them here if you'd prefer. Any comments/questions, let me know.

Many thanks

Matt

MattB2 12:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Only the once that you noticed. So for about a month and a half about 6 months ago. I do often try to give useful suggestions in situations of conflict. I believe there are two different types of mediation and I was involved in the specfically informal type.
2) No formal training although I remember some optional reading and bits of advice given somehow as the case was accepted.
3) I have no particular formal experience in dispute resolution, such as being a school councilor or something. I have informal experience with conflict and conflict resolution in my own life and around me as we all do. I have knowledge about how to make a good argument and the types of arguments made as many college educated people have. Strawman, slippery slope etc. This is formal training but not for this purpose.
1) Not the voice of experience here but I find that the worst disputes involve people that are unwilling or unable to listen to eachother. If the parties have an interest in maintaining conflict it will continue. A very good example of this is when the one of the sides takes the tactic of usurping the definitions of terms and refusing to accept the other definition. This does a great job of obfuscating the truth and perpetuating conflict which is often the purpose. As long as there is no winner the status quo is maintained there is room for doubt.
2) Good mediators need to be patient and very very good listeners. The worst thing that can be done is to make either party feel like there is yet another person who is not listening. I also think that good judgement and somewhat decisive judgement is needed too. Often the best judgement is very nuianced and this also needs to be effectively communicated. Listening, judgement, communication.
3) In some ways communication is hampered by using only one form of communication. Facial expressions and vocal tonaility are an important part of communication. Messages are often lost or misunderstood.
4) I actually think that this medium tends to require more thought and so it can mitigate impulsive or angry behavior. There are often hours or days to think about the last message recieved. It also makes it more difficult to talk over eachother and ignore eachother. It is somewhat helpful in preventing arguing over who said what but it can also get bogged down in semantics.
--Nick Y. 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond Nick Y. Just a couple more questions, if I may.
1) You say that it is important to dshow that you are listening to the party. How would you go about demonstrating this?
2) Similarly, what techniques do you employ to avoid getting bogged-down in semantics?
3) How would you identify and resolve misunderstanding/miscommunication?
MattB2 13:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I think the only way to do this is to truly understand what they are saying and demonstrate it by either summarizing their viewpoint or even better to extend their position beyond what they have considered. In other words offer some real insight. This does not require that you agree with their point of view just that you understand it enough to offer some real insight. This can sometimes be negative or critical but if so it must not be a cheap shot or tricky rhetoric but real insight on a genuine fallacy.

2) It is sometime hard to recognize semantic problems but once identified there just needs to be a redefining of terms and the parties need to agree to these new definitions. This can be even somewhat silly and completely ignore the standard definitions. In the case where the core disagreement is the definition of a term multiple definitions can be spoken about but need to be characterized, but not discarded simply because they are not the "strict" definition. In this case usage also becomes a factor in place along side correctness.

3) Misunderstanding is fairly easy to catch as a third party. This goes back to the root of most conflicts that need a mediator. The parties are not listening to each other. I think that leading by example here helps. Asking what is meant by a party helps the other party understand that particular point, demonstrates how to behave and the benefit of listening and clarifying. Sometimes it is necessary to be very confrontational and say "you are not listening". This is the main role of the mediator, to tell them they are not listening and need to work to understand the other party even if they do not agree.

--Nick Y. 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for taking the time to help Nick Y. It's been really informative. I should have enough to go with for the time being, and I'll let you know if anything comes out of the research.
All the best.
Matt
MattB2 08:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing topics in chemistry

Thank for the help with the missing topics page - Skysmith 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] elements project userbox?

What do you think?

A discus
 This user is a member of WikiProject Elements.

Abridged 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration on Analytical Chemistry

Tell me when you're free and i'll contribute and collaborate if you'd like. Similarly, would you like to work on Physical Chemistry? It's sadly lacking. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good on both collaborations. I am on and off line but keep it going over time. First thing that analytical chemistry needs is to address how to deal with the recent major changes. I would tend towards reversion and then try to include some of the new material of Jokbong as an addition to the article while cleaning it up a lot in the process. I'm not totally lost on P-chem (I've taken QM and stat mech) but no expert either but I bet I can help somehow.--Nick Y. 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Molar versus molecular mass

Hi Nick, my first thought was that molar and molecular mass are always very close numerically, but then I started thinking and came up with the following example:

An example of a case where molar and molecular mass differ considerably (by 11%) is water (H2O) and heavy water (D2O). The isotopically averaged mass of the hydrogen atom is 1.00794 u[1] and of the oxygen atom it is 15.9994 u, so that the molar mass of naturally occurring water is -18.01528 g/mol. Since the mass of the pure deuterium isotope is 2.0141 u, the molecular mass of heavy water is 20.0231 u, and we see that the numerical values of the masses of the two kinds of water differ by a fair amount.

  1. ^ See: http://www.physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Compositions/

Would you agree that it would be didactic to include this example in the article? --P.wormer 07:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to find...

Hi Nick - I hope you are well on Wikipedia. Do you know of any good resources for reflectance spectrometry? --HappyCamper 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly know of any. I had to google just to figure out exactly what you were referring to. Are you working on such an article? I might be able to help out, but would be starting from close to zero on this particular subject. My general knowledge of spectroscopy of course would probably go far since it is really only a variation of other forms of spectroscopy.--Nick Y. 20:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a friend of mine was asking about this today, and I didn't know what it was. I'm thinking of aiming for a stub! --HappyCamper 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optional question

Did you have a previous user identity? You need not answer if you don't want to, or you can email me if you want to answer privately. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, never under another user name. I did edit anonymously before assuming a user name.(e.g. [3]) Without distrusting your good faith I do find the investigation of anyone who disagrees with you (some of the times) to be a failure to assume good faith. Note that I agree with you on many points, such as banning SC in some manner (the only meaningful outcome of the situation). I voted delete on SC's afd [4], I initially supported your hasty ban and chastised Itub and Physchim62 for coming to SC's defense too enthusiastically when there was clearly a big problem. It should be obvious that I am not a SC puppet, nor am I a pseudo scientist. My interactions with SC were positive until the human chemistry afd, which very much surprised me. I had noticed his user page had some strange interests months ago but his edits were generally positive in the mainstream science articles. Both you and Physchim62 need to admit your mistakes and move on, perhaps giving some feedback to arbcom.--Nick Y. 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Nick Y., I am taking a glance at the user contributions of all people I meet and engage in serious discussions, whether they agree or disagree with me. It's a habit I formed after having been trolled a few times by sockpuppets. No, I never thought you were an SC puppet, not even for a moment. Your editing style is completely different from his, but I did guess that you had edited wiki before registering this account. I merely asked to see if I was right or wrong.
Email me if you wish for a more complete explanation. - Jehochman Talk 02:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that Physchim62 and I should exchange thoughts and settle the case, but he refuses to do so even though I have offered several times. I had very nice interactions with Sadi Carnot and thought he was a model of civility. I am even coming to the conclusion that he sincerely believed what he was writing and did not realize he was doing something wrong. Regrettably, some people do not fit in at Wikipedia because they don't follow site norms, and these people need to stop editing if they can't edit properly.
On a policy level, I wish there was a way to signal the user to voluntarily stop editing and send them to something like editor school to see if online training might help them. Blocks are crude. It would be better if we had a template that said, "your editing privileges have been restricted for quality reasons, but you are welcome to enroll in training here if you wish to have privileges restored." That would be the appropriate thing for somebody like Sadi. Rather than argue about this case, I wish the parties would consider the source of the problems and work together to resolve them. Best regards, - Jehochman Talk 01:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. I think PC wants to keep a formalized format to the discussion. Not a bad exercise but everyone should work towards the ends you speak of.--Nick Y. 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Cat's out of the bag. You've had an account before, or done significant IP editing. That's fine. No matter what, this was in the distant past. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Admin coaching. You can pick a coach from the list and contact them if you like. - Jehochman Talk 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This is a baseless accusation. I've never had another user name. My IP editing lasted no more than a few months. This seems to be an extreme failure to assume good faith. FYI if you had trouble with your investigation or came up with lots of hits for my work it is probably because I mostly edit from behind a very sophisticated firewall in a large, *very* secure organisation with dynamic IP adresses. What I don't understand is that for the most part I am on your side. I've only said that you were a little hasty as was physchim. I find this to validate physchim's witch hunt hypothesis and an abuse of your authority (but not powers since you are not using them). --Nick Y. 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you chose some poor words there? If so you should be more careful to not appear to assign guilt when you are only guessing about the meaning of your evidence. --Nick Y. 06:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I was going to have a coach contact you without you knowing I was involved. The cat is my referral, not your prior experience with wiki. P62's accusation forced me to reveal my intentions. - Jehochman Talk 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. On the second sentence I guess you may have meant "If you have... ...it is irrelevant."??? In any case I take your word that you had no intention of intimidation etc.--Nick Y. 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)