User talk:Nrcprm2026

Welcome! Please append new items below. I'll reply on your talk page, and here too, if I think other people might care about the reply. Thank you.

/Archive1

Note: Nrcprm2026's comments on Wikipedia are a work in progress, subject to the thread-mode disclaimer.

Thanks also to those who have asked me here.

--James S. 17 December 2005

Cost of extreme weather events extrapolation

Discussion

the initial revision

I have removed the figure you recently added to Global warming for reasons explained here. Dragons flight 20:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we agree that graph would be best with confidence intervals. James S. 19:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(At this point, a very lengthy discussion took place on several article's talk pages, and below, and on some of these images talk pages.)

See: Talk:Global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph

Revision

the best fit to the annual data fails to match the preliminary 2005 estimate

the previous parabolic fit in the log domain based on decadal averages predicts the preliminary 2005 data prescisely; predicting a much steeper increase

The second revision of the decadal data added confidence intervals, had an additional degree of freedom, about the same very large R² as the initial graph, and used the nonnegative log domain only. It predicted a very much steeper increase.

After trying to get the first one up, nobody can accuse me of being alarmist after I followed their revision suggestions exactly and got a much more alarming graph. James S. 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

you asked, on my user discussion page, "I see you have removed the graph I am working on from several pages because you say it is "unreliable" -- how can an extrapolation with the prediction confidence interval displayed not be "reliable?" ". easy. compare to the first two revisions of the same graph. in fact, why not create a graph showing the confidence interval of these three models against each other. then tell me your graph is reliable. i am in the process of posting a 'critique' of these graphs on my user page.Anastrophe 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I remind you that both graphs fall well within each other's 95% prediction confidence interval bands. I look forward to your critique. I suggest that if you think you can do better, that you make your own graph, so that objective third parties can compare the two and decide which has more merit. James S. 20:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

a graph by me adds nothing. your own three graphs show very well that there is no reliability to your modeling. Anastrophe 20:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you have shown at Talk:Global_warming#Inflation_adjustment that you lack a basic understanding of real versus actual cost to adjust for inflation, I am not suprised that you are unwilling to propose an alternative graph. But don't you think it would only be fair for me to critique your attempt? Goose, gander. James S. 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

you're welcome to do whatever you want on your own user page. knock yourself out. i acknowledged my error. thus far, you have refused to explain why a discrepancy of more than 3 trillion dollars does NOT suggest you are doing something wrong. i look forward to revision four of your graph, showing that costs will be 580 billion in 2025. then revision five, showing 460 billion in 2025. then how about revision six, showing 2 trillion in 2025. this is an encyclopedia, not a place to engage your phantasies.Anastrophe 20:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained that the difference between the second and third revisions fall well within each other's 95% prediction confidence intervals. Do you know what a 95% prediction confidence interval is? Your sarcasm is impolite and uncalled-for, and nominally against the rules here. I believe the only way for us to resolve this issue is for you to create your own alternative graph. Why don't you download the free, 30-day evaluation of [TableCurve http://www.systat.com/products/TableCurve2D/] which I used, and give it a try with the data set on my userpage? James S. 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

the "data set" on your page is a fundamental part of the problem. it is NOT a dataset. it is an estimation by examination of the values on an extant graph, and does not reference the *actual source data* used to generate that graph. furthermore, the dataset ends in 1998 - it is nearly eight years out of date, and incomplete. you are "predicting" values for which data already exists - it would be interesting to see how that eight year interval compares with your 'predictions' of already past history. but clearly, you are hell-bent to have this graph on wikipedia - what your motivation is i can only guess, but i would surmise you're a global warming hysteric, since you had no problem embracing 4 trillion as the cost in a previous graph. i could be wrong; it's just my opnion. wikipedia, however, suffers further as a reference source with the inclusion of this meaningless graph. i'm done. have fun. Anastrophe 20:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Back when I took statistics, there was nothing wrong with digitizing data from a graph. I agree that it would be great to have the 1999-2005 data, and I want to encourage you to try to find it. I do believe that wind power is a very important but neglected alternative to fossil fuels. I believe that makes me a realist, not a "hysteric." In any case, thank you for the helpful comments early on. James S. 21:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

i have not made, nor do i make, any claims of being a statistician, (or economist for that matter!). the onus is upon you to find the raw source data; you are the person who is making these extrapolations from an incomplete dataset. i believe also that wind energy is neglected, but i don't think it's as important as advances in solar power, which will eventually prove to be the only (and best, by far) alternative to fossil fuels, in my opinion. though it may seem like it, i have no personal ill-will towards you - i don't know you from Adam - but i do think that these speculations about future costs - which have vacillated wildly - are not helpful. stick to graphing the already-incurred costs. that should be more than cautionary enough. it is troubling to me that the IPCC's raw data is so difficult to find. Anastrophe 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Future extrapolations you're doing are always subject to interpretation, that's all we can do since nobody can predict the future with absolute certainty. In particular I'd like to see you apply a linear fit, if anything, I feel it's a better fit. Also, by simply choosing the starting point of your data fitting you're presenting a POV, imagine choosing the 1980 to 1990 period only and stopping there, say that's all the data available to you, and then, you'd have a graph that shoots very far up. Or instead of 1950, starting at 1990, and plotting only the last few years, that might even extrapolate to a decline. Also, you're missing historical data up to and including 2005. What happened in 2001 for instance? Extrapolations are always dangerous, I'd rather see this graph showing only the historical data, and that's it, and let everyone mentally predict the future, with their eyesight. This whole thing you're doing feels like intentional false science to me. Blindly going with R-square numbers without additional added judgement is an easy trap to fall into. As they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Well, the data hasn't grown linearly; I think the linear fit's R² was 0.38. Why would linear be a better fit? I'm well aware that I'm missing recent data, and if you know where it is, please tell me. —James S. 06:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, you should not double edit a page, don't engage in "it is not right, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is too" type of kindergarten fights. Once someone disagrees, and you make a change, you should wait for yet another person to come by and undo the undos, or at least convince some people. Everyone should have a vote, and make it a democratic process, and when 3 people disagree with you, and you fail to convince at least 3 other people to agree with you, you should stop reverting the edits. Of course you can always sign up for more usernames, and be a sockpuppet like that, but then at least it's obvious you're lying to yourself or acting with deliberate bad faith, and it's only funny for so long, the joke gets old, so I don't recommend that avenue of getting your way, but instead try to wait for others to come and agree with you, or actively try to convince some people on user and talk pages. In the meantime, at least while the controversy settles, you should keep the graphs on the talk pages.

Sillybilly 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think truth should be decided by majority vote. —James S. 06:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

then you probably shouldn't be on wikipedia, because that's how wikipedia works (which is not an endorsement). Anastrophe 06:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the current dispute resolution procedures are democratic, and some of them are less so, and designed to protect unpopular facts. —James S. 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

i'm sorry, i don't understand. which are you suggesting is not majority vote? democracy is rule by majority.Anastrophe 07:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

and which "truth" are you talking about? your graph? or something else?Anastrophe 07:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

At one end are the surveys, third-opinion, and RfC, which are democratic, but once you get up to mediations and adjudications, the decision authority is vested in an appointed few. I find it interesting to look at the adjudications appealed from RfCs. There are plenty of examples of unpopular contributions treated unfairly until they got to a formal non-democratic process. —James S. 07:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Frog won!

Dijxtra 21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

UO3 gas

I've been over with you why this idea of yours is BS, James. You have desperately misinterpreted the science, and it's been explained why. I said I wouldn't touch it - and I haven't - I have other projects; but I will point it out to others that might want to pick-up the debate. --DV8 2XL 09:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

James, I'm up to my neck elsewhere and I haven't the time to debate this with you right now. The statements that I (and others) made on this matter are somewhere in the archives of the DU discussion pages. In short this phase exists only at very high temperatures and low pressures and at STP cannot form or exist but for a fraction of a second if at all. It is a laboratory curiosity, and can form no part of the hazmat profile of uranium trioxide. --DV8 2XL 12:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nutrition is Science Collaboration of the Week

Hi, you voted for this article, and it won. Maybe you can help to improve it... See you there! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrestrial Planet Finder

Mothballed? Deferred? Any other way this can be put, or do you think mothballed is fine? I was a bit confused by it, but learned a new word .. Chad B. 10:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mothballed would be fine if there were a generation starship program. --James S. 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to nutrition!

- Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

RfArb

I an informing you that I am filing a RfArb against you. Ten Dead Chickens 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary demands

DV8 2XL wrote: "... [the UO₃(g) phase] exists only at very high temperatures and low pressures and at STP cannot form or exist but for a fraction of a second if at all."

I asked him or her for his or her sources; the reply: "Cd and I are chemists, our source is common sence. --DV8 2XL 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"

So, does DV8 have any reasons in support of that opinion at all? He or she claims to be a chemist, but will he refuse continue to provide any credentials, or explain how can they can be verified?

"I do not respond to this sort of arbitrary demand. I do not care what you think of me or my qualifications. This will be decided on the facts, which are in my favor. --DV8 2XL 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)"

If DV8 had any facts in his or her favor, why hasn't he or she been able to state them after repeated requests over a period of several weeks? DV8 is indistinguishable from any other pretender, and the content of his or her argument makes it clear why he or she refuses to associate his or her name with his or her edits to Wikipedia. --James S. 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

James, I've stated them over and over again - you will not listen - you are misinterpreting the science - it is that simple. Now that we are going into mediation, I will not engage you privately until this is over. --DV8 2XL 00:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Regarding User:Dr U, you are reminded to refrain from personal attacks according to wikipedia policy. All editors on Wikipedia are welcome to be as private as they wish with their personal information. I don't want to see any further questioning of Dr U's credentials by you. Thanks. --Syrthiss 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

thalidomide/agent orange/depleted uranium?

Hi - saw your addition of agent orange and depleted uranium links on the thalidomide page. I'd be interested to know your justification for these links, since (aside from being sources of birth defects) they seem pretty unrelated. Care to comment, perhaps on Talk:Thalidomide? -- Csari 21:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The mediation is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles, shortcut WP:RFM/DU: I look forward to your contributions. Physchim62 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I would be very interested to see the Ackerman article, and especially to know the value of ΔH that they measured. Physchim62 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither side is innocent on the personal attack front, as I have made amply clear. I have edited depleted uranium in an attempt to provide a stop-gap solution whilst the concerns about some of the claims in your edits are addressed: instead of discussing the matter, you are attempting to pass by force. You yourself frequently edit without logging in, so you are in no position to criticize those who prefer not to reveal their real name. If you wish to withdraw from this mediation, that is your right: please indicate your choice. Physchim62 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A copyright question

You wrote on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#February_14:

Note that "to be protected by copyright, a work must have been fixed in tangible form for more than a transitory period." The courts have held this to exclude stock and commodity price graphs generated by computers "on-the-fly."

Do you have a source for that? Pointers to court decisions? Lupo 12:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush

Please stop pasting the entire text of that impeachment amendment into the talk page. If you want to discuss it, it's sufficient to have a link to it. android79 12:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Psst

Check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

UO3

Hi it looks like you are editing UO3 article e.g. by inserting some structural data. I put some comments on the UO3 talk page because I would like to be let in on the joke or whatever is going on.--Smokefoot 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering with U03! I will help when the dispute is over. I will try to follow the discussion, but I am away for a week.Stone 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice

Dear members of Community Justice,

This message is just a simple newsletter, telling you of some recent progress.

Community Justice didn't get as many members as we initially hoped, however we currently have 11, including a few sysops.

The temporary council is now fully set-up, and it will remain in it's current form unless someone contacts me (or uses the talk page) to say that they wish to join the council, or to hold a higher post. In this case, an election will be organised.

We have created two warning tags: {{civil1}} and {{civil2}}. These aren't been widely used, so I ask you to use them when you see fit.

Finally, thanks! Computerjoe 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (delivered in AWB).

I like {{civil1}} best:

Template:Civil1

--James S. 03:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Given your repeated inability to display good faith towards other editors, I have decided to take this case back to the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image fair use

The Harper's impeachment image has been listed for deletion see the image page for links to discussion. -- Stbalbach 16:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:If defined (and others)

You recently voted "keep" in this deletion debate. Your vote was discounted in that debate. There is currently a deletion review ongoing that you may wish to comment on. You can read (and comment) on the review here. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Deceptive signature

Hi Nrcprm2026; An anonymous editor attempted to add a comment that would have appeared to have been signed by you. [1] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jordanhill Commemoration

Talk:Jordanhill railway station/Commemoration

Thanks!

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. If the Foundation is really interested in this, then so am I. Nach0king 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unclear on what "workshop" means

The workshop page, unlike the evidence page, is a collaborative page whose goal is to create a concise and readable set of alternatives for the arbitrators to choose from. While you are, of course, free to fill it with hundreds of thousands of words of verbiage, others -- including the Arbcom clerks -- will refactor the page at their pleasure. I moved your ridiculously large table to the talk page, and left a link to it, and to be frank, I was doing you a favor, because you don't seem to understand the nature of the position you are in, and that adding such material just makes you look silly.

In other words, if you put the ridiculously large table back, it's almost a certainty that someone else will remove it. But, hey, don't let me stop you from jumping off the cliff. Nandesuka 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Still unclear on the concept

Make whatever motions you like. It's well-established that any editor may participate in a workshop page. Nandesuka 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to the arbitration workshop

Greetings. Please do not revert changes made to the arbitration workshop without discussion, and do be considerate of others' "in use" tags. If you would like to challenge a decision to remove or refactor material by a disinterested party, please post it to the talk page; however, others believe that you are disrupting the page. Long posts and extraneous material are of no use and are strongly discouraged, and their refactoring or moving is helpful; please be as concise and to-the-point as possible, and if you have difficulty doing this, consider seeking an advocate to help you present your case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on uranium/actinides

Hi James, I think that even at this late stage it may help your cause if you carry on a debate on the uranium subject. Please bear in mind that while I like DV8 2XL I am neither strongly pro/anti james or pro/anti nuclear industry, so I think that I am a quite neutral editor (who has a good understanding of the actindies) who might be able to help us get through this matter.Cadmium

Hi James, I have a big question. Why do you think UO3 gas is important ?

I suspect that breathing in ^{85Kr as gas would have a smaller effect on one's health than the same activity in the form of 90Sr as a fine insoluble solid such as SrSO_{4. So I would say that sometimes a gas is not the more nasty form. I think that the chemical warfare in the trenchs of WWI have concentrated the minds of many people on gas (In WWI many of the first generation of chemical nasties were true gases such as Cl2 and COCl2). Also in modern times the Bhopal event caused a change in mindset, few people are aware of the menace of simple lack of oxygen. Confined space accidents have caused many deaths (think of sewars, holes in the ground, rusting which removes the oxygen from the inside of tanks, persons trapped in small spaces {eg lifts} with leaking nitrogen containers). I think that the idea of a creeping toxic death gas sticks in many people's mind becuase people relate it to a fear of some invisible agent which corrupts their bodies. If you look in history, you will see a range of invisible corrupting agents such as witchcraft, flouride in drinking water see the film Dr Strangelove and a host of other things (they are like fashions, they come and go....I imagine that you could name a whole load more examples). I think that oftein it is a case that many people in society concentrate on one invisible corrupting agent to the exclusion of others and as a result they miss the majority of the real threats. This is my view of the subject.}}

About the question of how much UO3 gas is formed, I think that during the mediation that I looked at one paper from a physcial chemistry journal that discussed MoO3, WO3 and UO3 at high temp and low preasures. After reading this paper I came to the view that the conditions described were not very relevent to the movement of uranium from am impact point (of a DU shell hitting a tank) to the lungs of the poor fellow breathing the U oxide in. I think that the UO3 gas will last only a short time and it will be a possible part of the process by which UOx coats dust particles.

If you provide me with a list of the references, and the links to the place where you made the scanned copies aviable for other editors to read. I can re-read the articles and then give my thoughts.Cadmium 18:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear James,

Thanks for the list of references

• W. Blitz and H. Muller (1927) Anorg. Chemie 163, 257.
• R. E. Rundle, N. C. Baenziger, A. S. Wilson, and R. A. McDonald (1948) J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 70, 99. I know that I can get this one with ease
• K. B. Alberman and J. S. Anderson (1949) J. Chem. Soc. 5, 303. I know that I can get this one with ease
• H. Hering and P. Perio (1952) Bull. Soc. Chim. 351.
• P. Perio (1953) Bull. Soc. Chim. 256.
• F. Gronvold and H. Haroldsen (1948) Nature 112, 69. I know that I can get this one with ease
• F. Gronvold (1955) J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 1, 357. I know that I can get this one with ease
• H. Hoekstra and S. Siegel (1955) J. Phys. Chem. 59, 136. I know that I can get this one with ease

I will have to check to find out how hard it will be to find the other refs.

I thought that a major part of the debate was the idea of UO3 gas at STP, can we both agree that a UO3 gas at 20 oC and 1 Atm is very unlikely or do you want to consider the vapour preasure of UO3 further ?

I am about to eat a meal, I will write the rest of my letter after the meal but feel free to reply to what I have written already.Cadmium

I am back (it was a good meal), I think that we may have been talking at cross purposes. I thought that you were suggesting that a long lived UO3 gas exists at 20oC 1 Bar. I still think that we have plenty to talk about. I have looked at some of the papers which you have scanned. If you look at R.E.J. Mitchel and S. Sunder, then they are suggesting that some of the uranium oxide is in the form of a soluble oxide while some is a less soluble oxide. I think that you will be OK about that.

I am aware that D.W. Shoesmith (In north america) has been doing some research on the corrosion of uranium oxide. He is interested in the corrosion of used nuclear fuels. I am sure that you know that uranium can form many oxides and that quite a few of these oxides are non-stiochimetric. This includes the semiconducting UO2. I think that it is possible that the oxidation of uranium metal with oxygen might occur via a reaction of oxygen gas with a solid (without the uranium going into the gas phase). The oxygen is mobile in the semiconducting uranium oxide film which exists on the surface. I know that the OECD did publish a big report on the thermodynmics of uranium, if you want to consult it I can get the exact details of it.Cadmium 16:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have found something which I think you might find useful, it might bore you to sleep however due to its large size. It is a book on the subject of the thermodynamics of uranium and its compounds, [2].Cadmium 10:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi again, I do not want to try and teach you to suck eggs (Teach you something you know already) but for a process it is possible to go from delta H and Delta S and the temperture to get a delta G at a given temperture. This can then be used to then calculate the equilibium constant for a process. So I think that the data which you have spotted in that vast work might be useful. I think that the most important part of the book is the data on uranium in aqueous systems, it gives a lot of data which can help you understand the corrosion/dissolving of uranium metal and its compounds. The sad thing is that the book concentrates on the thermodynamics and says nothing about the kinetics (but the book is supplied as a thermodynamics book).Cadmium 11:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Dear James, I have made an update. I have looked both at the section on UO_{3 gas and the crystaline forms of UO3. I have calculated ΔG for the formation of vapour. I think that an isolated ΔG or ΔH of formation value says little. I think that ΔG for a reaction says more. I am sure that ΔG of formation of methane are benzene are negative, but methane and benzene are not stable with respect to burning to water and carbon dioxide.Cadmium 22:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)}

Dear James, about the text which I highlighted during a statement on the Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please could you tell me if you were responsible for writing the text. I was unsure if you were the author of the text which I objected to, but from what I had read I have reason to think that you have been putting forward the point of view that the form of UO3 which people are exposed to is the gas, so I brought the text to the attention of the arbitration people as an example of something which has been going on in the pages devoted to actinide chemistry. As I was unsure of who wrote it, I did not state that you were the author of the text in question. If others have inferred incorrectly that you were the author of the text which I objected to then please accept my apologies.

There is something which I think that you should consider doing, this is to create a Born-Haber cycle for the formation of UO3 and U3O8 from uranium metal. I think that while doing this you could try to estimate the prospective adiabatic flame temperture for a uranium fire. Do you know how to work out this ? If you want to do it (using the up to date uranium data) then please add it to the evidence page (showing all your working) and drop me a note on my talk page. If you do not think that you are up to the job then I will do it for you (In creating the Born-Haber cycle I am willing to act for a time as a neutral party, as I will tell the others about the results of the calculations no matter whose would profit from the results)I can repeat the calculations and try and see if I get the same answer. This answer may be important to the question of what are the products of a uranium fire in the milliseconds after the reaction. This could help your case a lot.

There is something which I want to make clear to you, I have never been out to bash anyone (be they you or DV8 2XL or XYZ) the only thing I am trying to iron out is bad science from the Wikipedia.Cadmium 16:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again James. I am glad to hear from you that you are finding my work interesting. I think that I need to explain something. Hess's law is something important in chemistry. The overall takehome message from Hess's Law is that no matter how you go from from A to B the overall energy change which occurs on making the change is the same. Imagine that you have a golf ball at the tee, and you get the ball into the hole (which is 10 m higher than the tee), then it does not matter what route the ball took the potential energy which the ball gains during its travels is the same.

Good news/bad news. I am sure that you are glad that the thermodynamics suggests that a uranium fire might under some conditions be able to make a UO3 gas, and I like the fact that you have dug out the reference on the subject of particle sizes. But there is a bit of bad news, I am sure that the uranium oxide does not stay in the form of a gas for more than a few seconds. I am sure that it will absorb onto a surface of a dust particle.... You might want to consider ^{222Rn (radon) and miners. It is the case that miners who smoke are more likely to get cancer after a given exposure to radon than a miner who does not smoke. A strong synagistic effect between the radon and the smoking exists, if you want to read a good introduction to this then try and get a copy of Jiri Hala's text book (Radioactivity, Ionizing Radiation and Nuclear Energy, ISBN 807302053 x, I have added details of this book to the fission products pages, I think his book is a NPOV guide to much of the subject). So I still think that a long lived uranium oxide gas is not likely. Jiri's book has a large section on radon and related matters. I think to understand uranium you need to understand radon.}

You can use the radon/smokeing data to help to understand the behaviour of uranium oxide powders which humans might inhale.Cadmium 23:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at [3] this is a report on sustainable energy.Cadmium

On another related subject if you want to read [4] which does consider fine particles of Pu from experiments using Pu metal. I know that both the French and the British in the past did a series of experiments where an atom bomb was subject to a simulated accident. These safety trials were conducted to find out if an accident could provoke an atomic detonation. I imagine that the soviets and the US may well have done some similar work.Cadmium

• Dear James, I would like to suggest that you should consider the idea which I have posted on mindspillage's talk page. I have suggested to her that the health/enviromental issues relating to uranium should be placed on their own page. I think that a series of pages on the enviromental effects/relationship with humans for the following elements should be written.... radon, thorium, uranium, plutonium, cesium, iodine and the other fission products. I think that it might improve your case if you were to get stuck into such pages (IMHO radon would be the best one to start with, as it is a leading cause of lung cancer).

Each element would get the following treatment, the sources of it would be described, the chemical/physical form would be considered, the behaviour of the substance in the enviroment would be considered, health effects would be included and also any countermeasures would be included. The legal matters would be considered, eg building codes relating to radon would be written about.

Please could you leave a message on my talk page to tell me what you think of this vision which I have for this subject .Cadmium 23:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Dear James,

As I am unable to hear your voice or see your body lanaguge, I only have the clues within the text which might give some guide to how you feel. I think that the tone of your recent comments suggested that you were feeling annoyed, angry and irritated (MS word's thesaurus sums that up as irate), so that is why I thought that you were irate (with regards to the UOx matter). To my mind irate is not an insult it is more a state of mind, if someone were to phone me up at 0300 local time just to ask me the time of day or where the nearest newsagent's shop was, then I would be irate (I imagine that most reasonable people would be irked by such a phone call). I imagine that after a good sleep I would return to a more happy state and I would no longer be irate.

Lets try to be less stressed, wikistress is not good for you, me or wikipedia as a whole.

About the idea of clean vs dirty air, like you I want to breath clean air which is free of nasty substances. I also wish that others would be able to have clean air. I feel strongly that the reckless release of irksome substances into the common air is wrong, I think that getting overheated and mad as hell does not do much good so I try and stay calm. In general I favour a reduction (where possible) of the amount of irksome (carcinogenic, tetraogenic, toxic, corrosive and other nasties) substances being released into air/water/land, so I think that we do have something in common.

Sadly some sources of pollution can not be stopped, for instance an ash spewing volcano can not be stoppered up with cement and terpene releasing pine trees can not be wrapped with plastic sheet. But I think that you will agree that the human race does have a lot of choices which it can make, choices result in changes occuring. Lets have a cup of tea, I think that you want to make the world a better place.

While the visions of volcanos being fitted with cement plugs and pine trees being wrapped up in a thing like an oversized condom are funny, it is sadly the case that many pollution sources are not funny.Cadmium

Think of the children?

On my talk page, you wrote:

Show me a browser which implements <input type=file accept='audio/*'> [5] and I'll consider using <del> instead of <s>.

While funny, a bit misguided. Perhaps one of us should file a bug for it? Cheers. – TTD Bark! 02:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

MathCOTW

I know it doesn't need much work anymore, but it technically won if you're interested in helping! Meekohi 03:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for the Signpost tip; that was a great article. Look for it in this week's "In the news" section. — Catherine\^talk 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Chronospecies finally makes it!

File:Chemistry-stub.png

You voted for and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Week! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

In other news:

• SCOTW needs a new maintainer, and could to with a maintenance bot. If you know of anybody who may be interested in either task, please let them know!

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why stop there?

Since no one seems to give a damn about stopping your nonsence why don't you improve the Uranium dioxide, Triuranium octaoxide, Uranyl nitrate and Uranyl articles with your garbage? Oh and let's not forget a section on combustion products for the Uranium article itself. Surely all of these will benefit from your observations and balanced NPOV treatment. --DV8 2XL 12:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Come James; a personal attack? Or don't you have the courage of your convictions to bring your views to a wider audience? If fact how can you leave these other topics untouched if what you are saying is true? --DV8 2XL 13:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No guts, no glory. One little line in uranium isn't enough, so I expanded it with the Combustion products of uranium section from the trioxide article. Mustn't hide your candle under a basket, truth is truth is it not? --DV8 2XL 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Saved you the trouble by adding the same to Uranyl and Triuranium octaoxide. Be sure to put them on your watch list now. --DV8 2XL 13:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: last edit to uranium: That's the spirit old man; for a minute there you had me wondering who was using James' account. --DV8 2XL 13:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dropped a few lines over in Uranyl nitrate on uranium combustion products. Maybe you should drop over and give it a quick copyedit. --DV8 2XL 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you believe it! Someone has an issue with the uranium combustion section in the uranium article and is demanding references. I would love to do this but I will defer to your wider knowledge of the source documents. --DV8 2XL 14:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Radioactive contamination could do with a discussion on UO3 gas as well but a cut-and-paste is not appropriate. Perhaps you could put up a few lines on the subject at your convenience. --DV8 2XL 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

UO₃ structure

Hi James. Sorry for putting up the wrong bond angles on that image. Can you send me a link to the Cotton (1991) reference so I can do the correct structure in ChemDraw? I'm mostly thinking of lone pairs - where do they go?

Just to let you know I'm not against you in the edit wars and I appreciate all the hard work you put in to adding references and trying to understand the details of UO₃.

Cheers Ben 13:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta for the diagram. Is Cotton (1991) referenced from the article? I'd like to read it to make sure I get the lone pairs right.

Thanks James

Ben 13:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page.

--Ben 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied again.  :)

--Ben 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't Know...

... who User:129.215.37.180 is but I want to make it clear to you it's not me. --DV8 2XL 04:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uranium trioxide

HI there, this is about the recent edits to Uranium trioxide.

• "hexavalent uranium compounds" or "uranium(VI) compounds" both refer to the same thing, that is compounds of uranium with oxidation number +6. "Hexavalent" is somewhat outdated usage, in today's literature one gives the oxidation state in Roman numerals. Our article on oxidation numbers says just that, and my opinion (and unstated the opinion of others on the talk page) is that Roman numerals look more contemporary.

• You say that "the well-developed chemical compound articles show a single molecule diagram in the chembox". Well, that may be because the more fleshed-out articles are mostly on organic compounds, which in most cases are molecular compounds and not coordination polymers. As I see it, the purpose of a structural diagram is to see connectivity of a molecule at a glance. The CSD calls structural diagrams "2D information" for that very reason. The equivalent would be a description of the coordination polyeders around uranium and oxygen. Writing a molecular structure where no molecule exists or is very uncommon will mislead the casual reader. Not that the article on silica has no structural diagram, and anyone who writes O=Si=O for sake of completeness ought to be slapped with a trout. Most articles on salts DO NOT have structural diagrams.

• The paragraph on the stability of UO₃ is at least misleading and could be written better. It's true that UO₃ is (thermodynamically) stable towards decomposition towards UO₂ and O₂, and the solid is (kinetically) stable towards loss of oxygen at lower temperatures. However, the 1960 Ackermann paper is unambiguous and those facts must go in: gaseous UO₃ is in equilibrium with U₃O₈ and molecular oxygen, and at higher temperatures the equilibrium is towards UO₃. Before you say the rules of thermodynamics don't hold in combustion plasmas: they do hold, they hold everywhere, if they didn't one could invent a perpetuum mobile. 129.215.37.8 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I see you reverted again to "hexavalent uranium(VI) compounds" wothour discussion. Well, it's one thing or the other but not both. I will revert again to "uranium(VI) compounds". You can change that to "hexavalent uranium compounds" if you prefer that. However, if you want to be taken serious at all don't revert again to your version. 129.215.195.81 17:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Maybe I could take your argument about deleting the word "hexavalent" seriously, if you weren't also deleting the NIST-based diagram along with it. --James S. 17:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • The diagram and the word "hexavalent" are two different issues that must not be conflated. I have explained often enough why "hexavalent uranium(VI) compounds" is redundant verbiage, and it's not worth you throwing a hissy fit about it. As far as the diagram goes, have you understood at all my reasoning against it? I have not seen any argument of yours in favour of retaining it. "NIST have one" is not an argument, it's an appeal to authority. 129.215.195.81 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Now you reverted the compromise version "hexavalent uranium compounds" to your version "uranium(VI, or hexavalent) compounds". Do you understand at all why your version is objectionable? Because if you don't understand just say so and we will help you out. Can you at least explain why you prefer your version to either "hexavalent uranium compounds" or "uranium(VI) compounds"? If you can't and won't ask for help where you are lost you act like a kook and will be called a kook. 129.215.195.81 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• You also put back in the structural diagram for the monomer without explanation. Please explain why. If you don't know why someone might prefer not to have it, just say so and we will explain. There is already much explanation on the talk page, but if you don't understand the reasoning (because you might not be a chemist) do say so, we will explain. 129.215.195.81 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• The third thing you reverted was a paragraph about uranium nitrides that are formed when uranium burns in air. The article is about uranium trioxide, a certain uranium oxide, not about burning uranium in general. This information belongs in the article on uranium, not the article on uranium trioxide. Please explain why you think the proper home of the paragraph is in uranium trioxide, not in uranium. My reasoning to remove it is that this is a reaction of uranium metal that has nothing to do with this particular oxide here. 129.215.195.81 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Please try to refrain from making personal attacks. Your arguments are not convincing me.

• • The aerial oxidation has been the source of some interest, and the nitrogen salts are important for any discussion of the uranyl oxide gas production from combustion in air.

• • What is the source where you found the gamma polymorph ions? --James S. 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well, if my arguments are not convincing you might as well explain why they are not. No one denies that UO3 is formed at high temperatures. It's just that uranium nitride has nothing to do with how UO3 is formed. As for the gamma-UO3 structure, that's in that 1963 Acta Cryst paper. Could you now please explain why you insist in keeping the gas-phase structure in the infobox? What is the advantage? 129.215.195.81 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • See, if you can't defend your reasoning people will call you a crank, someone who holds false beliefs in the fact of reason, this is inevitable. It's what happens. Take some reason. Don't call WP:NPA. It's not helpful, it doesn't improve your standing and doesn't improve everyone elses nerves. 129.215.195.81 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to replace the solid-state structure and revert your edit. The last sentence of the Acta Cryst. paper reads "In view of the coordination ..., the chemical formula could be written ...(UO2)(UO4), uranyl uranate." Writing down the formula as such is a bit of simplifying things, there are other, secondary contacts in the coordination sphere, no one insists that there is dicoordinate and tatracoordinate uranium in the structure. It isn't distorting or mislabeling things.

Before you make such edits it helps if you read and understand sources. 129.215.37.8 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on continuing to remove the Simon Cotton quote about aerial oxidation creating uranyl compounds on the premise only that the nitrides don't apply? The sub-topic is about combustion. I believe that sufficient information is already in Uranium#Combustion products include teratogens. --James S. 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Because the combustion products of uranium are part of the chemistry of uranium and as such have a home in the entry on uranium. (Hey, they are already mentioned in the proper place!) Uranium nitrides are not formed from Uranium trioxide or are part of its chemistry, on the other hand. That's why the paragraph has no place there. 129.215.37.8 21:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous revert

James, was the anonymous revert to "uranium(VI, or hexavalent) compounds" yours? It has been pointed out that this version is incorrect and is currently "uranium(VI)". Please don't revert back. 129.215.37.163 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

James, is that you? 129.215.37.163 01:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your revert at uranyl

I reverted. See talk page there. 129.215.37.163 08:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read a chemistry textbook? Greenwood & Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements is thorough and comprehensive (albeit a bit too heavy on boron chemistry). 129.215.37.163 09:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

The thinking skill shown in your recent edits to Uranium trioxide are not at the TH-3 level. --Stone 10:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Uranyl compounds

James, why do you insist including information on uranyl compounds in the article on uranium trioxide. Specifically, why do you insist on including a paragraph on the structure and bonding in the uranyl ion and a paragraph stating that on aerial oxidation of uranium compounds one will end up with uranyl compounds? This is relevant -- in the article on uranyl. It has no bearing on uranium trioxide. 129.215.37.163 12:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Tell me again why you believe that the description of the uranyl ion has no bearing on uranium trioxide. I am trying to assume good faith, but it is obvious from the content of your edits that you are trolling. Please stop. --James S. 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is because there are no uranyl ions in uranium trioxide. There is already a comprehensive section on structure (both solid-state and gas) in the article. Also, the fact that under the influence of oxxygen and water ("air" isn chemists' jargon) one wil end up with (UO2)2+ has no bearing on this compound. 129.215.37.163 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. --James S. 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

UO3/U3O8 equilibrium

I have now rewritten that system as an equilibrium, which it is after all. Please note that the previous version of the chemical equiations and the current version are equivalent. Before you revert please read the article on chemical equilibrium to understand why they are equivalent. If you do revert please provide a rationale, do not revert blindly. Thanks. 129.215.37.163 13:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ammonium diuranate

Could you explain why you tagged the sum formula for ammonium diuranate in the article on uranium trioxide as "citation needed"? No one with the faintest idea about chemistry would doubt this, in fact the formula is obvious from the oxidation numbers of the atoms involved. You aren't collaborating on an encyclopedia any longer, you are on a crusade against those that are suppressing the truth on the poisonous nature of uranium trioxide vapour. 129.215.194.206 20:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

This is now the fifth time that "Combustion products of uranium" is re-inserted into Uranium trioxide. Please discuss on the article talk page. 82.41.26.244 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR. If you wish to remove source-supported statements, you must first find sources of greater or equivalent notabilty contradicting them. --James S. 22:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page of that article there is a source-supported statement by User:Stone that thoroughly debunks the notion that it's UO3 that is formed during combustion of uranium. It's U3O8 and other, lesser oxides of uranium. Indeed, it's you against consensus single-handed on that page, and it brought you an arbcom case, too! 82.41.26.244 22:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which source-supported statement by Stone thoroughly debunks the notion that UO3 is formed during the combustion of uranium? --James S. 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Try Talk:Uranium_trioxide#Combustion_products. Volatilization of urania under strongly oxidizing conditions Journal of Nuclear Materials 346 (2005) 312–318 C.A. Alexander. Why this fixation with UO3 when by the time the flame gases have cooled down one is left with an intractable mix somewhere between U3O8 and UO2? Note that this isn't saying that any of those compounds are harmless, rather the contrary. The point is, they are not UO3 and the paragraph shouldn't be in an article on UO3. 82.41.26.244 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, that source contains not even a hint of any suggestion that UO3(g) is not a combustion product of uranium, and suggests that uranyl hydroxide is also in humid air. --James S. 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

UO3 diagram

What is the diagram from Cotton's book doing on the uranium trioxide page? That diagram is to illustrate structure and bonding in the uranyl cation, (UO2)2+ and does nothing to explain the structure of UO3. In particular, it doesn't explain the unusual point group C2v instead of the more usual D3d. My own take on the matter is that in UO3 is sufficiently large and Lewis acidic to coordinate an atom of argon from the matrix, and that Pykkö is right when he calculates that in the gas phase the molecule is really trigonal planar. Then again, that's OR at its finest. 82.41.26.244 12:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• About the gas phase strcuture of UO_{3, I think that it will be C3 trigonal like a BF3 molecule. I think this becuase it is the geometry predicted by valence electron pair repulsion theory which is one of the best methods of predicting a molecule's shape.Cadmium}

• • Hi, I have just read the paper by Green et. al. in which they report matrix isolation IR spectra of uranium trioxide. I think that this is the closest you will ever get to a gas phase IR study of UO3 molecules, gas phase electron diffraction would be nice but I doubt if anyone has done it (I have looked and I can not find it). I have just added the details of the IR reference to the page.

• • About VSEPR, I would like to know if you have ever used VSEPR ? (it is taught normally in the first year of a chemistry degree)

• • Please could you tell me why you think that the VSEPR should go, you commented that you think that quantum mechanics is needed. Sadly QM requires a lot of computing power, almost all QM which is used in chemistry is a tamed version to reduce the computational demands. VSEPR can be done on a scrap of paper in less than a minute (In density functional theory it will take much longer to set up the job for a simple molecule than it will take a person using VSEPR... So VSEPR is fast), and it gets the right answer almost all the time. I assume that the U in UO3 is U(VI) and as it has three atoms bonded to it (and no lone pair on U) then according to VSEPR it will be C3 trigonal and flat. Green et. al. consider the T shape to be remarkable, and it goes against VSEPR I think that some comment to this effect is needed.Cadmium

• • • Hi James, I agree that with some transition metals that VSEPR will fail becuase of crystal field effects and for lead(II) the stereochemically active/inactive lone pair can raise its irksome head. But in the case of Ti(IV), Mn(VII) and U(VI) the metal does not have any d or f electrons so crystal field energy effects do not matter. So I think that for TiCl4 and UF6 and UO3 that VSEPR is OK to use.

• • • Also I think that you have been given some bad advice by someone, the f-orbitals of the trivalent lanthanides do not interact well with ligands so resulting in the lanthanides not having their version of the d-block's crystal field energy effects. For insatnce the lanthandie emission spectra of Eu is almost perfectly independent of the chemical enviroment. The only thing that the chemical enviroment does is to alter the quantum yield of the emission when the system is excited by a UV source. If you want a good example see the work of P.G. Samms. Cadmium 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I failed to add the comment that if d or f electrons are present within the noble gas core then it does not matter. Also for a metal such as zinc or cadmium in the divalent state which has a full set of d-orbitals then the crystal field energy effects will not matter. For a good example compare zinc(II) and cobalt(II),Cadmium 21:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK about OK liquor ? James, what do you think is wrong with OK liquor. the term seems to have become a de facto standard name for something used by both the nuclear industry and the nuclear brigade. If you look at [6] ypu will see how OK liquor is the term for the uranium rich aqueous phase obtained by stripping the uranium loaded organic phase.

• Also in making your revert you have thrown out the baby with the bath water, Stone had added more to the article. Maybe some red links existed, but I think that you should add to and edit the version of stone rather than reverting it back. Do bear in mind that you have recently been banned for revert warring, I do not wish to see you banned and I think that doing a lot of reverting is not going to help your case. I will be reverting the uranium trioxide page back to the version of stone because he had fixed the references and added more data.Cadmium 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I will be adding some results of bond valence anylsis on the uranium oxides. You might want to try it on your UO3 molecule to see if you get a total s of +6.Cadmium

• • • Calcs are finished, as expected the oxidation state of the U in UO3 is about 6, but the interesting thing is the oxidation states for both uraniums in U3O8 are the same suggesting that the oxidation states are disordered in the crystallographic sense. What do you think of this ?Cadmium

Hi James, sorry I must have become very confused. I thought that it was you who objected to the term OK liquor. Sorry for my sillyness.

About the oxidation states, the bond valence calculations are interesting. In this bonding model all bonding is treated as being ionic, using a vast amount of crystallographic data some workers in the field have worked out a set of parameters. The idea is that the closer the anion is to the cation then the greater the calculated contribution to the oxidation state of the cation is. This model works well for metal oxides and is well accepted by the metal oxide chemical community. What I had done was to examine the uranium oxides, I started with delta UO3 which I assumed would be mundane, I got the 'right' answer (oxidation state of the uranium was about 6). I repeated this calc with U3O8 expecting to find a U(IV) and a U(VI) site, but I was surprised to find that both uranium enviroments has the same oxidation state according to the calc.

I can see two possible reasons why this is the case, either the uranium(IV) and (VI) might be disordered over both sites or electrons are mobile in the U3O8 lattice. I know that in semiconducting phases that oxidation states are not always what they might appear to be according to the formula. For instance in EuO, the Eu is (III) the solid is in fact Eu O e-. Would you know what the electrical conductivity of U3O8 would be ?Cadmium 23:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Busby paper

I recently commented on the paper written by Busby which you cited in the uranium mediation, please could I have your thoughts on the points which I raised. I have reason not to trust this work and I am awaiting your thoughts on the subject.Cadmium

Hi James, I see that you have been blocked, try to cool off a bit I think that you are not a happy chap right now. Lets talk about the Busby paper, I would like to know your thoughts on the paper.Cadmium

Where is your most recent critique of it? Do you have any sources supporting your critique, or is it your opinion alone? --James S. 20:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have cited a set of sources which support my point of view (these include both web sources and a few references to paper documents), I would like to know your thought on the matter, my entry at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles has all the key points.Cadmium

Hi James, I think it will be reasonable if we set aside the work of Busby as the UK goverment have stated that no rise in uranium level elsewhere in the UK was detected.[7]. Please could you remind me of the years when NATO were most likely to be using DU in Serbia, as I have found a paper in which the background levels of radioactivity in a Serbian river is investigated. I will add details of this reference as soon as possible.Cadmium

Blocked for revert warring on Uranium trioxide

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You can not simply characterize a good-faith content dispute as "vandalism" to avoid being subject to the 3RR. Nandesuka 17:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the multiple reverts I have been undoing have been made in good faith -- my most recent edit summary shows clearly that I have been reverting rank vandalism. --James S. 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Your edit summary states that you are reverting rank vandalism. It does not show it. Generally speaking, one indicia of vandalism is that other editors will agree with you about what is or isn't vandalism. If you can't find a few other editors to revert the changes, that is a good indication that what you are reverting as vandalism is not. Nandesuka 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. The mass deletions of source-supported statements from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature which have been repeatedly removed from Uranium trioxide prove that I have been reverting ordinary vandalism -- and substantially improving the article, as the edit history plainly shows -- and correcting the recently-mentioned mistake in pharmokinetic terminology which substituted "elimination" (meaning "from the body") in place of mere lung solubility.

Furthermore, you are not a neutral party. You have opposed my work, now vindicated by User:DV8 2XL's copies of formerly-disputed sections from Uranium trioxide to Uranium, which you argued vigorously against at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop while the parties were still in discussion there, "refactoring" chronological discussions out of order there, and requesting an injunction against me. Because you are not a neutral administrator, I ask that you lift the block against me. --James S. 18:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I will post on the Administrator's noticeboard noting that I have blocked you, and asking other admins to review the block. I have never, to my knowledge, edited any uranium-related article, although of course I have participated in your RfArb. I obviously don't feel that that should stop me from preventing you from misbehaving when I see it. Nandesuka 18:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence that I have been misbehaving, other than "one indicia of vandalism is that other editors will agree with you about what is or isn't vandalism" -- and in fact, exacly as you requested, other editors have recently reverted to my source-supported version using correct pharmokinetic terminology, and other editors have recently improved on the correct version as well. There is no evidence that you actually examined this block and the allegations behind it, and plenty of evidence that, since you have vigorously opposed me as a non-party in front of the ArbCom, that you are about as far from neutral as you can be. Why shouldn't I report you for your abuse of your admin privleges and lack of investigation of the dispute before effecting this unjust block? --James S. 18:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, your request for review is biased: in it, you write that my reversions of vandalism was "egregious" (a word you also used in the block summary) but your comments above plainly show that you have done no research into the legitimacy of my reversions, that you have ignored the other editors working with me against inaccuracy and vandalism of large passages of source-supported research in the article, and that you have absolutly no evidence that my reversions of the vandalism were "conspicuously bad or offensive" -- unless you are offended by those of us who choose to support uncomfortable truth. Please remove the block yourself -- it is the responsible thing to do, and I am certain that you would like to be seen as a responsible administrator. --James S. 18:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel I have abused my administrative privileges in blocking you for your blatant violation of WP:3RR, then I encourage you to complain in whatever manner you wish. Nandesuka 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

James, I do object to being called a vandal - my edits are to remove stuff that is continuosly reverted against consensus or is just plain irrelevant. An apology is expected. 82.41.26.244 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you repeatedly delete lengthy passages supported by the peer-reviewed and scholarly medical and scientific literature, without much more than "revert to better version" as an explanation? And why did you repeatedly use the term "elimination" for lung solubility, after the mistake was pointed out repeatedly on the talk page? Do you have any sources supporting your deletionist reversions, or are you simply going on your opinion? Are you basing your judgment solely on the opinion of other editors? --James S. 20:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If you had read the article talk page you would know. The issues have been discussed there ad nauseam and a consensus has been found. 82.41.26.244 22:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, there has been no discussion, suggesting that "elimination" is the same as "solubility" in lung. "Elimination" has a precise meaning, in pharmokinetic terms, meaning loss through excretion, urination, or persperation. --James S. 18:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

DV8 2XL lack of good faith: diff1, diff2. Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Further examples of behavior issues.

Nandesuka incorrectly claims this insertion of a structural diagram qualifies as a revert

Bollocks. It's the umpteenth time that the section "Combustion products of uranium" pops up. Those that you haven't worn out yet chuck it out, you, and you alone insist on putting it back. 82.41.26.244 19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:82.41.26.244 is apparently also 129.215/16.

He is not "apparently" 129.215/16, he owns up freely to being him. 82.41.26.244 19:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported claim that U3O8 is an eventual weathering result -- in fact, U3O8 is partially soluble to uranyl. --James S. 19:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for making Wikipedia a little friendlier. :) Ashibaka tock 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"nonnotability not established"

In this edit you remove a prod tag with the comment "(deprod, nonnotability not established)". I'm confused - surely the article has to establish notability? How could you establish non-notability? — ciphergoth 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. I'm not a big fan of {{prod}}. I often remove it from articles such as AlphaCom on strictly inclusionist grounds. What I meant is that there is no evidence that the program isn't notable. Maybe it's sold 50 copies, but maybe 50,000. That article is clearly well-written and source-supported. --James S.

Shock and Awe

Hello Nrcprm2026, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[8] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 20:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)