User talk:EagleFalconn

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkTroll 21:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sp² bond

The sp² bond article is linked to from the carbon nanotube article, where it says that nanotubes and graphite are composed of sp² bonds. So it would be helpful if someone mentioned the situation like in carbon nanotubes and graphite where the p orbitals form pi bonds that are delocalized across the entire sheet of material. -- Spoon! 20:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Move History

Sorry, any possible way of moving the History of a page is still an unknown for me! Good luck! --AlainV 01:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Geo-stubs

Hi EagleFalconn. First, thanks for adding stub messages where necessary to items - it's an important task. But... be aware that there are quite a few subcategories of "Geo-stub" that may be more useful than just the generic message (they're listed at the top of Category:Geography stubs). If you can, please use ones like "Africa-geo-stub" or "China-geo-stub" if they exist. Cheers, Grutness|^hello? 01:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hybridization

Hi: I too work in computational chemistry, on small molecules and looking at bonding theory. So we should try to reconcile our opinions without cloggin up the main pages!? An early article on why d orbitals don't get involved in hybridization was by Reed & Schleyer (J Am Ch Soc 1990, 112, 1434), which is still quoted (eg Ponec & Girones J Phys Chem 2002, 106, 9506).

I havn't worked with NBO analysis - shall look into it more - but my impression is indeed that it aims to talk interms of hybridization, and constrains itself to use minimal basis set AOs for its localization scheme. But this is recasting the hartee-fock wavefunctions specifically to do so - importing hybridization schemes that were not there in the original wavefunctions.

Maybe email directly? I'm at REMOVED (I kid you not!)

--Ian 15:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note:I've removed the email of my own accord, mostly to protect him from getting boatloads of spam. EagleFalconn 15:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indiana Artice

Hi: I have noticed that you have been editing the Law and Government section of the article. You claim that you're reverting vandalism. Nothing that you have removed can be considered vandalism under Wipiedia's Guidelines for Vandalsim. From the page: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia".

I think you do make a good point in that the wording does suggest that Bayh somehow has competed with Bush directly, and it needs to be clarified. But I think having a comparison to Bush in there does show something important (and interesting) about politics in Indiana. I'm going to try to rephrase it, but please don't refer to other people's valid contributions as vandalism, just fix them. We can work together to make the article better. acaides 02:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. Things make a little more sense now :) But, this exercise should prove to him that the Wikipedia model is sound and healthy. The fact that in his apparant attempt at vandalism actually improved the article proves that much. Thanks for your help. acaides 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Acid dissociation constant, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 04:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict on science ref desk

Hi! I've just put back my reply about disk shaped galaxies on the science ref desk - you removed it when adding your reply. Please be careful with edit conflicts! Happy editing. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Oops. Sorry about that, I'll be more careful. EagleFalconn (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

Just wanted to come by to say sorry for the unnecessary remark about your contrib to the bug question on the reference desk. My initial attempt was to be witty but I failed miserably and offended you into the bargain. I've seen your responses and have always respected and admired them in the past, I had no grounds to be so pathetic. Sorry. Richard Avery (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR

I should be able to take a look at Acid dissociation constant for PR in the next day or so - thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD/GFDL

No problem. It's a distinction that a lot of people – including me – aren't always careful about, and it's easy to get sloppy after a while. I just wanted to be absolutely clear on the Help Desk, since there are probably readers there who aren't as familiar with the issues involved as you and I. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solubility

Hi there, I see you reverted an edit a while ago- it's back in, but now there is a wiki page with a link to their web page: Simulations Plus. Is this a dodge to get around it? I'm unsure on this aspect of WP. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is an attempt to get around it. Though now that they've created an article we need to establish notability before we can nominate for deletion or otherwise. Their article is pretty well referenced, though I'm not a fan of their citation style of making broad claims and then citing a couple of papers, which as far as I'm concerned doesn't justify broad claims. See the comment below for their reply to my reverts. I'm personally inclined to think that he has a point, and we should strike all such links from articles. I'm not sure. I'm going to talk to an administrator who will know how to handle this from here better than I. EagleFalconn (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed links

You have removed all the links I recently created to our web pages in "External links" sections of several wikis claiming that they were "spamming", "advertising", or "promotion". Fine with that, but the same wikis contain links of EXACTLY THE SAME NATURE created by our competitors, links that stay there UNTOUCHED FOR YEARS! Here you go:

Solubility contains links put by VCCLABS, Quantum Pharmaceuticals, ACD Labs

Partition coefficient has links to CDK, JOELib, ACD Labs, VCCLABS, ChemAxon, Molinspiration

ADME is linked to Simcyp Simulator, Quantum Pharmaceuticals

Plasma protein binding contains Quantum Pharmaceuticals

Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling has links from ACSLX, Simcyp, Quantum Pharmaceuticals, PK-Sim

Acid dissociation constant has linked SPARC Calculator

Drug design links Quantum Pharmaceuticals (again!) and Ascalaph

Quantitative structure-activity relationship contains link promoting C-QSAR

Lipinski's Rule of Five links to Molinspiration.com and ChemAxon's software

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.182.120 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same for many other wikis. For example, q-pharm.com linked itself on Plasma protein binding on September 10, 2007 and nobody bothered it ever since. How does it say about you being fair? Does Wikipedia give unfair competitive advantage to one business over another?

A proposal added next day: Trying to tame the wave of links is like trying to save a leaking dam - you patch it in one place and it will leak in another. Instead, relieve the pressure by creating an alternative conduit. There exists a Wiki category Computational chemistry software where all the software vendors place links to their products. Why don't you allow creation of "Predictive ADMET Software" in the same manner? Nice, clean, and fair to everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.182.120 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Link spamming dispute

I would report the pages in question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and see what they think. My guess is the commercial external links will all be removed. I also think that it is sometimes OK to use a link as a reference that would not be OK as an EL. I know that magnetic stirrer used to have lots of manufaturer's links, but they were all removed.

I will leave WP:COI and spam warnings on the talk pages of the two editors (named and IP) too. There is also WP:OTHERSTUFF to reply to the post above this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on unit symbols for liter

We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old books

I decided to cite Ronnie Bell's book after reading in Shriver and Atkins (1999), p174: "A classic discussion of Bronsted acidity, with many examples drawn from organic chemistry". If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. It may be old, but it really is a classic. And no, I don't have a personal copy of this one, but I have studied it, long ago. Petergans (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't realized I work at home. I have all my old books, but as I retired 5 years ago, they are beginning to go out of date; I bought the latest Atkins, Phys. Chem. recently. Some very old ones, like Rossotti and Rossotti I picked up when other colleagues retired and wanted rid of them. I use the Leeds Uni. library catalogue on-line to check citations and the Library of Congress catalogue is also available on-line. The only disadvantage of working at home is that I can't access SciFinder or electronic journals from here, but I can do that if I go in to the library as I still have a valid ticket. I would like to find a review of the hydration of the proton and SciFinder would be ideal for that. While I'm here, Ivo Leito replied and said he would try to help (pKs in DMSO etc) this weekend. Have a good one yourself. Petergans (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid dissociation constant

If you could weigh in on Petergans recent behavior with the article that would be great.--Jorfer (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello EagleFalconn! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 197 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Joseph Francisco - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:BLB11th

Template:BLB11th has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Loudon4th

Template:Loudon4th has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2015 (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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]