User talk:Johnheritage

License tagging for File:Keckclipsfailing.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Keckclipsfailing.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

HCl

Hi John. Thanks for the polite note, esp after I had chopped up your contribution. The main thing in your edits, it seems to me (and I am not in charge, no one is here) is to avoid writing a quasi-user manual, see WP:NOTMANUAL. Furthermore, Wikipedia gets most content focused on schools and students, but 99.99% of the billions of kilograms of HCl is industrial, so be mindful that the discussion is weighted accordingly WP:UNDUE (only partially applicable). The Chem style manual discourages discussion of safety info that can be found more authoritatively in the MSDS. We just agreed not to compete with MSDS's, which are all on-line. Pages could be written on how nasty HCl is to experience, as you seem to know first hand! In any case, leave a note here if you want to discuss things. Best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Avast thar smokefoot.

I agree with your edits since they were so well compacted.

I would have to disagree about the safety aspect. This is something I have endless discussions about on things like Science Madness.

Far, far too many of the standard hazard symbols and such are entirely dimensionless and potentially more of a risk than a few words would be. For example, I have chemicals in the room I'm sat in now with the Jolly Roger skull and cross bones on them, yet they're also added to your dinner. Others with the same sticker will essentially rot my brain in tiny quantities. Equating the two with the same sticker is a big issue for me, because it will encourage people with experience using one bottle with that sticker to assume another will present the same risk.

I also don't fully trust the MSDS. Some of them go entirely overboard, some of them miss out important points.

A favourite, and extremely cheesy, saying I heard is, "I can't deal with a risk until I identify it". Those 'none scientific' additions to the safety information, how it smells and feels when exposed to something like hydrogen chloride are what would allow someone to say "that's hydrogen chloride" as opposed to "vinegar".

Unfortunately, wiki seems to have taken quite a hard hit in terms of the safety sections. There are numerous articles about chemicals on here with no safety information, yet they're horrifically toxic materials that are controlled under the chemical weapons acts. Mean whilst, food additives have vast sections that make them sound orders of magnitude worse than those without.

I agree, the main articles themselves shouldn't have all that detail in them, on production and safety issues. But it would be excellent if there was a subpage linked from the main pages with all those details in.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

"tough, I'm adding one anyway, since the talk page is a one sided, unrealistic, discussion" is not gonna fly in a collaborative environment such as wikipedia. If you jump right in being confrontational, don't be surprised if your ideas are not taken seriously even if they have merit. If there is content based on a previous consensus, you need to get new consensus first, no matter how strongly you disagree with the previous wording or consensus: editing against consensus is another bad idea. DMacks (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Redox. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Mutinus (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)