Achim1999

WP, OR, and stuff

Also, welcome to wikipedia. If you have any trouble in the future, don't hesitate to ask. (TimothyRias (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the explanation. It seems I have just another problem touching "black hole" My change in the article "gravitational singularity" was removed with the short comment. "no OR" I wonder whether this, compton length of a mass M, thus no true singularity, even a magnitude estimate how far the matter density may increase due to uncertianty principle, can be given should be put on "your" :) black hole page.

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User:Llamadog903 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a tit-for-tat as you did for the beta-stable isobar page I m CURRENTLY working on! Regards

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Whoa whoa, calm down. I reverted it because it sounded nothing like an article. Abce2|AccessDenied 14:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But the reverted you prefer did? You are pulling my leg! Please be more sincerely and don't delete important informations -- or you should change your judge which could be an article. :-( It is especially ennoying if you (in this case me) currently working/editing on the page. Regards

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please stop, your adding your personal opinions to the article so much that it can't be rewritten

Please rewrite what you put in the article so that it express neutral point of veiw, no personal opinions, and sounds like an e Abce2|AccessDenied 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There

I've done the best I could to the article. Please don't add anymore things with I or you in the article. Abce2|AccessDenied 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to do EXACLT this, but you prevented it!! :-( Please correct all the erros I still have seen, I'm tired of fighting against your removing-attitude. :-(

Image: you are currently working have made many changes in a preview, want to store and then there is an edit-conflict!! VERY innoying if this ocvcurs several time in the row provocated by the some guy. :-(

Well, I'm sorry if I've edited "Your" article. Abce2|AccessDenied 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not "my" article (as you know), but I create this page yesterday (a proposal in beta-decay article-discussion), and I was pleased in the night to give more background information (there was no backgrund information when I created the page containing only the the first 20 and last 20 nuclides. You should / could excuse for disturbing my editing and deleting twice every explanation on this page! :-( This would sound sincerely, and not ironically. Regards Achim1999 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

1I never deleted anything on you talk page, and 2. What I ment was that you were acting like I was always wrong. I am sorry if I offended you but you might want to listen to other's ideas before considering them wrong. Abce2|AccessDenied 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Achim1999, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
• Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Achim1999, good luck, and have fun. --Abce2

re:

please assume good faith. List of elements by stability of isotopes Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And?

By the way: look at the page "Beta-decay stable isobars". This table is effectively a list in table format!

Why do you not rename these "table of nuclides"-articles into "chart of nuclides" or explain at least to me, the difference between map and chart? :)

Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how they are presented (either in a table or simply listed) article names on Wikipedia are called "List of" not "Table of". It is a standardized practice as per the manual of style at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, in particular at WP:LISTNAME where it says "If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in table form, the name or title List of _ _ is still preferable to Table of _ _ or Comparison of _ _.". Also article names on Wikipdedia only use parentheses when required for disambigution (for example in the case of two people with the same name), which is not the case here. Moving Table of nuclides (sorted by half-life) to List of nuclides by half-life was within the guidelines of naming conventions, your reverting it back because you didn't like where it was moved to was inappropriate. If you wanted to move the page back to a name that is against contrary to Wikipedia style guidelines you should have brought it up on the articles talk page or proposed a move using the proper process. Calling an editor's behavior annoying and calling a good faith move (which is inline with current style guidelines) vandalism because you don't like it is uncivil, and I remind you that you do not own the page so he didn't "steal" it by moving it.--kelapstick (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the name above, if you want to go with the not-standard name please edit the discussion I initiate on the talk page. --kelapstick (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an the talk page of User:Nergaal:

Moreover I wonder why do you do such an important change without asking on the discussion-page of the article for agreement? Or should I understand your page-moving as vandalism?

1) I ASKED whether I should consider this as vandalism!

2) Whether his behaviour is annoying to me, I judge!

3) I get no answer of my question "why ...." from him!

against is not the opposite of preferable as you cited above. I called his behaviour autocratic, because he did not annouce or ask for permission on the article-talk page. And if such behaviour is in the guidlines of WP, then I think WP has too much authors and can complete this article without my support by such editors! Argh!

BTW: Why do we not discuss on his page who cause this problem! Where I start to get a reasoning of his dones. Is this against WP-guidelines?

Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Being bold and moving an article to the proper location that is in line with a style guideline is not something that requires discussion on an article talk page. Moving it back to a location that is not supported buy any policy or guideline is. Asking an established editor with a record of constructive edits if one of their edits should be considered vandalism is accusing him of vandalism in a roundabout way. Calling someone (or their actions) annoying is uncivil. Period. You are free to judge his actions anyway you like, however name calling is not permitted on Wikipedia. I don't know the reason he did not answer why, but I think that saying "List of elements by stability of isotopes" was giving you an example of an article that goes by the naming convention that he moved it to. I put my comment here because I wanted to make sure that you got my message as it was directed at you, we can have the discussion about where the page should be located anywhere, but the appropriate place is Talk:List of nuclides by half-life#Article name. I have changed "against" to "contrary".--kelapstick (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Only two comments for you:

Asking an established editor with a record of constructive edits if one of their edits should be considered vandalism is accusing him of vandalism in a roundabout way.

Preassuming that the caller knows that the person is/acts as an established editor!

But I did not know this; thus your conclusion is worthless in the current case.

Calling someone (or their actions) annoying is uncivil. Period.

I think you should improve / enlarge your social competence / knowledge to be able to make better judgements. Regards,Achim1999 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1. If you look into an editors history you can see if they are established editor or partake in vandalism regularly, which is something you should do before you ask if they are vandalizing. Note that on Wikipedia vandalism means intentionally adding or removing or changing content with the intent of damaging the project.
2. My social skills are fine, I don't have to improve them.
3. If you want to find out why somebody did something, go to their talk page and ask nicely. Do not go to their talk page and call them annoying, say they stole the article and ask them if they are vandalizing it by moving it.

--kelapstick (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations and such

Hi Achim1999. I'm glad to see you contributing to Wikipedia and that other editors have already welcomed you, with a few links to information you will find useful.

Regarding the implicit question in one of the comments made on one of your edits to the noble metals article: "I don't know what the sense is, to want to get a citation for nearly every sentence. (add one which already was given by external links)", I would offer a couple of thoughts. WP:V and WP:CS are good general sources for information about the importance of verifiable information and the utility of inline citations. It is not necessary that every sentence be cited; for example, if all of the important assertions of an entire paragraph are supported in a single verifiable source, then one inline citation at the end of the paragraph is sufficient. But it is important that all claims be supported by specific citations, and it is not sufficient to say that "somewhere in the webpages of all the external links, all these claims are supported." That is to say, it is important that a reader of Wikipedia be able to see a claim, and if possible, link directly to the source. Thus 'ref'-tags and '{reflist}' are your friends, as they support inline placement of sources and a clean and easy collection of the references at the end of each article. Hope this helps. Thanks again for your contributions. But do ensure you have verifiable secondary or tertiary sources for all claims you wish to assert in an article. N2e (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The data of chemical reactions one should be able to look up in any chemistry library. They perhaps slighlty vary be reference but the principle reactions, e.g. aqua rega doesn't attack Ir or Rh, but Pa and Os are always supported. But I myself am too bored to went to the library (I work at a university having e.g. a department of inorganic chemistry) and look up references.

The sentence Antimony and Polonium can be[clarification needed] questioned to be only metalloids and thus ruled out to get "noble metal" status.[citation needed] I totaly wonder. Whether Antimony and Polonium can be considered as metals or metalloids should be decidable even in this WP! And the following conclusion is a pure logical one (only metals can be called noble metals). Therefore I wonder about this citation-demand here. Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I claim no special technical knowledge of chemistry or metallurgy -- and even if I did, my "knowledge" should not be the basis for any assertions in Wikipedia articles. So from my point of view, if an assertion says A=B, all I look for is that a verifiable source confirms this relationship. If not, the claim may be fairly tagged citation needed. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (per WP:V policy). If, for example, an editor can point to a viable secondary or tertiary source that questions whether Antimony and Polonium are noble metals, whereas another source says they are, that's good enough for Wikipedia. But it would be original research to get into the metalloid vs. metal discussion in the Wikipedia article without a verifiable, secondary source that addresses the subject. Hope this helps. N2e (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to go into the discussion of metalloid vs. metal! I simply want to point out, that the reader should use (accept) the definition given in WP and then it is only a logical conclusion what I state. I think you and probably other readers misunderstood my formulation. :) Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-noble metals

Lets go step by step. A search for "semi-noble metals" on google or google books returns few counts. Why do you think this term should be mentioned on WP ? Materialscientist (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just was trying to write you a small please to have a look at the end of the Talk-page of Talk:Noble metals on your User-talk page.

I learnt this word/term "semi-noble metals" first at school and later it appeared in textbook of inorganic chemistry at university. I admit there was no general definition given, but that Copper is called not a noble metal but a "semi-noble metal" crossed several times my way in life. :) Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, now your problem and a minor of mine is already resolved by using a more special formulation in the paragraph to be discussed. :) Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuclid

I'd say that the misnamed article is a typo of a form that can be reasonably expected to occur; as such, we can leave it in. Misnamed talk pages, on the other hand, don't really make sense. DS (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of of Phase diagram of carbon

A tag has been placed on Phase diagram of carbon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Duplicates File:Carbon basic phase diagram.png (criterion G6)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion happend now and it is okay. Achim1999 (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: edit conflicts

I know its annoying, and have it myself everyday. It is impossible to predict who will edit an article when, thus rules don't exist. I myself always have a cache of my edit (if your browser doesn't support that, you can just select and copy your text into a buffer before saving), and thus just paste it after someone's edit - it is very rare that edits overlap. If they do, I re-write considering the previous edit. Thanks for your recent additions to arsenic, phosphorus and carbon. Materialscientist (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Triple point data of carbon

Could you check the triple point of carbon? The box says ~4750 K, but the value on the phase diagram is clearly lower (~4500 K). Thanks. Ah, another note, I would never believe the triple point of carbon is known with such an accuracy and would round the pressure. Materialscientist (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

10132.5 kPa = 100.00 atm, so I guess the publish values was 100 atm which afterwards was converted into Pascal. Here is a 1985 value for the triple point of carbon: 4247 K, 1.0436*10^7 Pa. I will try to get a more recent data publication for C triple point. Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Still in September 2001, the data was dubious. :-( See "Once more about the experimental investigation of the thermal properties of carbon", EÂ I Asinovski|¯, A V Kirillin, A V Kostanovski|, Physics ± Uspekhi 46 (12) 1305 ± 1306 (2003) Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2004.12.027 "Measurements of the melting point of graphite and the properties of liquid carbon (a review for 1963–2003)", A.I. Savvatimskiy, from Carbon, Volume 43, Issue 6, May 2005, Pages 1115-1142

Data from April 2003, Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

graphite−L−V triple point are 4766 K and 10.3 MPa from "Refined Phase Diagram of Boron Nitride", ladimir L. Solozhenko* and Vladimir Z. Turkevich, Institute for Superhard Materials of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev 254074, Ukraine J. Phys. Chem. B, 1999, 103 (15), pp 2903–2905 DOI: 10.1021/jp984682c Publication Date (Web): March 26, 1999

Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The best/newest reference from July 2007 I found up to now:

"Size-Dependent Temperature-Pressure Phase Diagram of Carbon", C. C. Yang and S. Li J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 1423-1426, DOI: 10.1021/jp076049+

I cite: "However, evidenced that the graphite/liquid/gas triple point is at 4800 ( 100 K and 0.01-0.1 GPa, providing an accurate correction on Bundy’s result.5-9 As a result, the point (4800 K, 0.01 GPa) was used as the graphite/liquid/gas triple point in our considerations."

Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a nice literature overview. I myself was not involved in this research, but I know some of those authors and regard Solozhenko as the strongest specialist. However, he and others do not measure the triple point, but either calculate it or merely redirect to older refs. Solozhenko's ref doi:10.1016/0008-6223(86)90113-2, in turn, is a redirect. It contains a nice discussion showing the huge uncertainties in values, but unfortunately, it mistypes the pressures from MPa to GPa and thus can not be recommended. My solution was to find a paper doi:10.1016/0008-6223(76)90010-5 which contains (i) accurate pressure measurements of triple point and (ii) nice summary of other research and associated temperature measurement problems. Pressure is an easy part, but temperature varies up to 1000 K between experiment and calculation. I took a compromise of 4300 K (discussion in doi:10.1016/0008-6223(76)90010-5) with uncertainty of 300 K which seems fair enough. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't make a fool of yourself! This reference is more than 30 years old! Thus it can only discuss the reports earlier than 1976! I cited the reference from Solozhenko, only because it seemed that it was the 4765 K value here in WP-carbon. And that a typo in a article means that this article can not be recommanded, I call a bad joke. Okay. What speaks against the reference I favoured: "best/newest reference from July 2007". There is at least Bundy's wide spread value and many other authors values dicussed. I only wonder why you want to see such an old (and probably out-dated) reference here in WP-carbon. Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a harsh reality which you might not know: for already about 20 years nobody wants to make difficult experiments just for fun. This includes melting carbon (nobody needs to know about that). All recent refs either simply re-cite old data (Bundy) or are just theoretical modeling, which can't be trusted in this field. The ref. I used seems nearly the last one which was still doing accurate primary research in this field. In critical cases I do read the articles myself and find that many who don't simply misinterpret them. Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I cited above for your information: the recent researches experimentally. You did not answer my question: why is this an unreliable source in your eyes? Their references [5-9] are from 2001-2005. And your old reference surely did not discuss the results which were published the following more than 30 years. Argh!Here you may read the article online [[1]]. I again cite from page 1424:

However, the recent researches experimentally evidenced that the graphite/liquid/gas triple point is at 4800 ± 100 K and 0.01-0.1 GPa, providing an accurate correction on Bundy’s result.^5-9 At least you may be interested in the first reference [5]: Korobenko, V. N. Experimental investigation of liquid metals and carbon properties under high temperatures. Ph.D. Thesis, Associated Institute for High Temperatures, RAS, Moscow, 2001

And another cite from an abstract: Reliable experimental data for the graphite melting point are presented: enthalpy of solid state under melting (10.5 kJ/g); enthalpy of liquid state under melting (20.5 kJ/g); heat of graphite melting (10 kJ/g); liquid-carbon resistivity (730 μΩ cm) near the melting point at a density of 1.8 g/cm3 under high pressures (several GPa); estimation of expansion (70%) during melting at 100 MPa pressure; and melting temperature Tm = 4800 ± 100 K at a pressure 10–100 MPa. Most of these data are obtained by electrical fast heating (1–5 μs), that are supported by the data of carefully executed laser-pulse heating.

from Measurements of the melting point of graphite and the properties of liquid carbon (a review for 1963–2003)

Could it be that you are right? For about 20 years since 1976, there were nothing experimentally done? But today is 2009 , not 1999. :-)

Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I've read those articles too. Russians did do much work on melting "recently", but. There was some confrontation between two groups there. One group wrote a comment on results of others, and the other replied (that was all in the journal Physics Uspekhi), and from the reply I am suspicious about the results, because the reply admitted their own results were "preliminary", but blamed another group as plain wrong .. I can't trust that PhD thesis either, without reading it, in such case. Everything else was not recent at all, despite claims of the abstracts. Date of publication means nothing there. In some papers graphite was melted, but not at triple point. Unfortunately, I left those pdfs at work, but I'll look again on monday .. Ah, by chance I have the 1963-2003 review with me. Its a good summary and I'll put it into the article, but it is quite misleading for an external reader - there are several dozens of results in their tables, with a large scatter (1000 K, as I said), and no clear explanation why. The triple point temperature seems closer to 4600 K (or even higher), but again, with huge uncertainty. Basically any value is Ok with me as soon as it does not pretend to be more accurate than within ±300 K. "4800 ± 100 K and 0.01-0.1 GPa" is plain wrong because the triple point pressure is known quite accurately, and there is no way to have temperature accuracy ± 100 K in this case (high-temperature pyrometery), especially if pressures varies between 0.01-0.1 GPa. For WP purposes it is better to be ± consistent with the phase diagram picture. Materialscientist (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read these two article as PDFs ("Measurements of the melting point of graphite and the properties of liquid carbon (a review for 1963–2003)" and "Size-Dependent Temperature-Pressure Phase Diagram of Carbon" and of course I also have no access to this Ph.D. thesis. I got the impression because there are given many different measured physical properties, the data from the Ph.D.,"4800 ± 100 K and 0.01-0.1 GPa", is most realible. Regarding this pressure range: I understood that this was the range he/they measured the melting temperature of carbon (and not the uncertainty in the triple point pressure measurement).

I don't know why they could state the sigma-uncertainty of the temperature to be ± 100 K, but ± 300 K looks extremly high (almost 10% of the data-value for its 1-sigma-variance). Because this "theoretical predicted phase diagram of carbon" relies on data before 1990(!) and it should be only an approximation to the true phase regions, I would think its triple point is indicated only about 4500 K, say ± 500 K . BTW: How are boiling points of the elements with boiling point > 5000 K (W,Ta,Re,Os,Hf,Nb,Mo,Tc) measured? Their 1-sigma-uncertainties seem to be much lower than 300 K.

Regards,Achim1999 (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question, which I'll read about. I know melting point of tungsten is known rather accurately. My intuition tells me the critical difference is that metals can be slowly heated by electric current, that allows various cross-checks (spectral measurements of emission, etc.). Another difference is that all processes below melting of carbon can be measured using graphite crucibles, using steady-state heating (microwave, current, laser) .. I don't know how accurate are boiling points which are above 5000 K; maybe again, very approximate. I'll quickly reply on why I don't believe in ± 100 K: the temperature is measured with a pyrometer. Pyrometer has been calibrated (with some uncertainty too, but for temperatures ~1000-2500 °C, perhaps using thermocouples as a cross check) by looking at a black-body furnace (esmissivity ~1). Uncertainty ± 100 K at 5000 K means emissivity of the studied material (carbon) is known with accuracy of 2%, which is not realistic. For example here emissivity of graphite has a range 0.75-0.95, and it does change with temperature. Another problem is sample volume: for carbon it is small because it is heated by focused laser. Thus pyrometer "sees" not only sample, but whatever material around (also hot) + scattered laser beam. Third problem is rapid heating (milliseconds or so). Materialscientist (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a public availible reference [2] of the 2007 problems in uncertainties of boiling point measurements of the platinum-metals.

Currently a new thermo-element set of eutectic metal/C or metalcarbid/C elements are in test which should enable temperature measurement up to 3000 °C via e.g. HfC/C thermo-elements. [3] Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, thermocouples and thermoelements are much better than pyrometers (predictable quasi-linear response), but they work only up to 3000 °C. I didn't find today what I was looking for (e.g. how do they measure melting T of tungsten so accurately - it is an international temperature standard) but I'll check tomorrow. As I understand your ref [2] above, the table on boiling points lists not the accuracy of measurement, but accuracy of predicting the temperature using the P-T relations of the paper, those P-T relations are semi-empirical, and are based on experimental data, they are actually one of those extra cross-checks which work well for steady-state heating, they work well for metals, but not for pulsed heating of carbon. Materialscientist (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Math and MathJax in English WP

In fact, we are in a crazy situation in English Wikipedia:

• MathJax is not the default but it may be chosen in the preference
• A bug in MathJax cause that every formula containing < is almost unreadable
• \lt is not recognized as a Latex operator and gives a "Failed to parse (unknown function\lt)" error in the default environment

It follows that, on most math articles, one can not use the default version of MathJax (there are patches, but one may not ask all readers to load them), and thus that < should be used in math.

There are several thread on the subject in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics‎‎

D.Lazard (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope I will remember this temporary situation. Achim1999 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW I use the new MathJax-patch, after telling this bug in the wikipedia-de, because I was encourage LAST WEEK to use MathJax, not rendered formulae with png-graphics. Sorry, that I don't know when this new(?) patch will be rolled out officially. Achim1999 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing

On No-three-in-line problem, the items in the section you called "Literature" are actually (also) reference for the article. The article uses a "Harvard" style of citations. See Harvard citation. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:CITEVAR: "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

With this kind of "reference style" you can hide very good your maybe wrong claims! :-(

Every statment must be searched in the given literature list! A precise reference, like I gave indictates exactly where the source for my statement is! It is a question whether one likes higher quality or not! So I conclude: in this article low reference quality is wanted.

Sorry, I did not expect that higher quality (easily checkable) references is effectively unwanted in this article! :-( Achim1999 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

List of nuclides -- sorted by half-life

Hi

Just recently you added a reference for Xe-136 half-time detection. Unluckily it is the first to break the readability of the table. I would suggest add a further column generally to add references nuclide-specific. Many(!) data are disputable, even in physics review level.

But what is more important, I worry who added this nonsense (to be precise, off-topic and ill-defined) about short-living natural nuclides? Why are they mentioned in this article, at all? It is highly dubious, because any nuclide which can be created by cosmic rays will be produced sooner or later! It is only a question how long and with which effort you try to detect them. Thus, I think almost all sentences where "natural short-living" occured should be deleted in this article, IMHO. :-/

The first paragraph of this message triggered to write this message to you, but I always thought whether and when to expand this list further. I stopped when expanding the list up to half-life of 1 hour, because to my knowledge all nuclides with Z < 96 which will still be dedected will have half-lives < 1 h -- rather good models exist for years (good enough to get these limits). There will surely be further nuclides with Z >= 96 which half-lives > 1 h -- noone knows how many. Critical are the half-lifes of the unknown nuclides Pt-204, Hg-210 and Po-220 (the next are Pu-247, Pu-248, Cm-252) and this status now keeps since more than 10 years. :-( I wonder whether it makes sense to add a new batch of nuclides, all those up to ... X min half-life?

I like to hear your opinion to all 3 points -- I'm afraid there are much too less experts on wikipedia, that it would make sense to add all literature references for the data. Thanks, Achim1999 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. To address all 3 questions: 1) The reference for Xe-136 was not intended to be a general reference, but because the disagreement came up in the context of "which radisotope has the longest measured half life" as discussed on the TALK:isotope page. It seems that the Japanese have claimed to see double beta decay in Xe-136 at 10^26 sec, but a large liquid xenon detector has ruled this out to better than 10^32 seconds, which means Xe-136 is stable as far as we can tell (we know its stability to as high a number as most of the "stable" nuclides in its mass range). So this disagreement in measurement of more than a 6 logs (1 million) is rather violent. It moves Xe-136 from observational radioactive to observationally stable, which is a big jump. I tought it was worth a note. It changes all the numbers in the other tables as well-- for example if Xe-136 is stable then there are 256 stable nuclides, not 255 (though the number of primordials at 288 doesn't change, as you just get a radioactive primordial nuclide moving to the stable class, so there are 32 of these not 33). Yes, I know this number is changing all the time, but we attempt to keep track-- it's more worthwhile than the other counting issues you mention.

2) Some short-lived (non-primordial) naturally-occuring nuclides are very important-- atmospheric cosmogenic nuclide Be-7, C-14, Cl-36, I-129 and radiogenic nuclides like radon and radium. You will notice that I didn't put them in a table or even list them, but we probably should somewhere (not by half life, but by abundance or activity in the environment). The total number 339 comes from this source: [4] but it's not set in stone, as these include the classic decay chain radiogenics from thorium, U-235 and U-238, and the most well-known cosmogenics like Be-7 and C-14. You're probably right that everything that can be made cosmogenically will be made in atmosphere and upper crust, but there's a HUGE gap between the longest lived primordial Pu-244 and the longest lived purely upper soil cosmogenics like Al-26, Ca-41, etc. Somebody should add up the cosmogenics easily found, along with decay chain radiogenics easily found (perhaps with half lives over 1000 years?) and put them in a table. I really want common radiogenics + cosmogenics. It will always be expanding, but most tables in Wikipedia are expanding. These are important because they are useful, notable, and have been known for a long time.

3) I'm not adverse to a table with isotopes with half lives shorter than 1 hour, but we have about 1000 now and there are several thousand more known, so it's a big job. But surely cosmogenics and radiogenics in the environment with half lives of thousands or even hundreds of thousand years are more interesting? SBHarris 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, but your philosophy of wanted quality of wikipedia's articles is too different of mine. Probably mine is too high-level for the "silly" (sorry) folk who uses mainly this encyclopedia. Achim1999 (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Spontaneous fission as theoretical decay mode for Z > 40 elements

Hi Sbharris, in this diff, you added that spontaneous fission may occur in 93Nb and 94Mo. Do you any source where it is written. I looked for a bit and I did not find anything about these nuclei and their hypothetical spontaneous fission. Pamputt (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think all this started in this article: List of nuclides where you see that everything over Z=40 is theoretically unstable to spontaneous fission, just because of energetics reasons. The source was a Brookhaven chart of the nuclides given in the refs. However that source, which is wallet cards from Jagdish K. Tuli, I believe has stopped listing "theoretically" unstable nuclides in these cases. There is argument about it in the literature. SBHarris 03:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you really certain that this was ever in there? I do not find hypothetical SF for ⁹³Nb or ⁹⁴Mo in the 5th, 6th, 7th, or even 8th editions. Though since not even the latest edition lists the alpha decay of ²⁰⁹Bi, perhaps they are outdated in other ways too. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so the first apparition of this "information" has been done by Achim1999 in this version. The source that he gives does not say anything about spontaneous fission. When you say "Every nuclei over Z=40 are theoretically unstable to spontaneous fission", this is exactly the kind of affirmation that I would like to be able to find source. Especially why it is Z=41 and not Z=40 or 38 and why it is mass A=93 and not another one. Could you point out me some articles in the literature saying that? I was not able to find them. Thanks in advance. Pamputt (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not married to the idea of putting (SF) on all those things if we can't find the source. The theory makes sense, but that's all I can say. I'm going to copy this whole discussion to Achim1999's user page and see if he has any comment. As for me, you can take all this out if you feel strongly about it. I don't. SBHarris 22:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Beta-decay stable line.png

The file File:Beta-decay stable line.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sd1

Template:Sd1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)