User talk:Shultzc

Welcome!

Please leave any suggestions for me below.

Shultzc 05:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Conrad

You have left a message on Organic chemistry objecting to the definition/classifiation of chemistry. The note above your comment was written in March and since then the definition has been improved in my view. Do you have any quibbles with the present definition and what is your objection if any.

I never heard from anybody about your definition saying that organic chemistry has to be connected with methane ?

The last time I looked at the definition it included your other criteria

By the way, your expert contribution on these pages would be very welcome. I dislike the paragraphs on properties for instance, which does not give justice to its title. I have a draft rewrite, but I am not yet satisfied with it, it needs a rethink.

LouisBB 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments - I replied on your talk page. Shultzc 09:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Thank you for the reply.

You might correct me on this but I would doubt if any other encyclopedia would use your definitions, although I don't wish to argue about their correctness.

The first one needs explanation of what a covalent bond is and then what bond is in general, and somebody who wants to know what organic chemistry is is unlikely to understand either of these.

The second is a bit too technical as well. You can convert many compounds to others, and why don't we start with CO and H2 and methanol synthesis, or Fischer Tropsch. Methanol does not make sense to me.

Properties I meant Characteristics and I shall expand on this a bit later, as I have to go now

LouisBB 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

I’ve been a bit busy with doing some translation work for the Wiki Trustee Elections, so this Wiki aspect was a bit neglected, though I wanted to do some mod’ in it. I am very pleased to be able to discuss the subject with you, rather than to fight an editing war, which some people have a tendency to do. The other tendency is that the whole subject is abandoned.

What I have quibbles with is the Characteristics and the Organic reactions sections, which, I think, need a lot of editing.

I would think that the Characteristics should be sub-divided to a Chemical and a Physical section. In the former section the reader should be referred to electron configurations, orbitals, and the way they influence chem. behaviour, very well detailed by the reference Daley & Daley.

The connection between the physical properties and electron configurations are not mentioned either, and the reasons why we pick on density and solubility from amongst the scores of others. Again, the Daleys gives the reason.

Secondly here we don’t say anything about state of aggregation, which is just silly, because physical properties (even including solubility) largely depend on it. The solubility link appears quite exhaustive, I have not looked at it thoroughly enough to say if it is exhaustive enough.

A link should also be quoted to physical properties in general as well as to detailed explanation of electron configurations and orbitals. The mention of p electrons does not convey much to the reader at this stage.

In Organic reactions the definition is a bit simplistic, as it states the obvious, and the formula, again, at this stage is not meaningful. We should refer to chemical eqilibria and reaction kinetics as well, which, to my recollection is not the case. Apart from giving a brief list of reaction types we should give a link to the complete list of reactions shown elsewhere. I looked at this section in the German Wikipedia and I was very impressed how well ordered and wikified the appropriate German section was.

Why am I telling you all this ? It is because I trust your superior knowledge, as things should be fresher in your mind as a PhD student, than in mine, an old graduate. Apart from that you would have easier access to citable textbooks than me.

Cheers, LouisBB 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for CIA DCI fine-tuning

Nice improvement in the linking. There's a lot of both CIA and general intelligence material, and indeed an Intelligence Task Force at the Military History Project, that can use another look. My userpage gives an overview of how a lot of pieces fit together.

In a way, it's both friendly and amusing to see some of the comments on your talk page -- I was a chemistry major about 40 years ago, and, in the real world, am suddenly in need of remembering organic, and the small amount of chem engineering to which I was exposed. I keep reasonably current in pharmacology, but some friends want me to write a proposal for a rather creative application for biodiesel from restaurant waste. Funny how it comes back!

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, thanks for the feedback. Sorry for the very delayed response, I don't look at my talk page all that often. shultzc (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Island Slipper Factory (May 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Island Slipper Factory and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Island Slipper Factory, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Island Slipper Factory (May 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gene93k was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No significant changes addressing notability issue since submission was previously declined. Per WP:CORP, a company needs more than local coverage.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Island Slipper Factory and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Island Slipper Factory, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

• Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Shultzc. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]