User talk:David E. Volk

[User bio is in User:Your Name]

Hurricane is coming!

Wish us well in sleepy Galveston, Tx. It looks like Tropical Storm (or Hurricane) Edouard is set for a direct hit on Galveston tomorrow morning about 8 am or so. David E. Volk 10:57, 4 August 2008 (CDT)

I keep my fingers crossed--Paul Wormer 11:12, 4 August 2008 (CDT)

Now Hurricane Ike is coming

Being about 11 miles east of Galveston, TX, in Jamaica Beach, it looks like what Eduardo left behind Ike is about to fully destroy. News reports have the current storm surge at 8 ft, and the hurricane hasn't even hit the Galveston area yet. This one looks to be a truely devastating storm for the Galveston-Houston area. For those of you watching the news, Jamaica Beach is about 11 miles west of 61st in Galveston, which they keep showing on the news. Wish us well and I hope to be back to working on CZ soon. David E. Volk 13:47, 12 September 2008 (CDT)

I wish you all the best...I hope you are prepared, and "godspeed" to your return! --Larry Sanger 13:55, 12 September 2008 (CDT)

Thanks Larry. We are holed up and safe in SW Houston area to avoid the storm surge. Unfortunately, my house, my mother-in-law's house, and those of many friends are in great peril on the west end of Galveston Island where there is no Seawall. Family, friends and pets will all be saved, and that is the important part. David E. Volk 14:50, 12 September 2008 (CDT)

I'm very glad everyone is safe, at least. --Larry Sanger 15:09, 12 September 2008 (CDT)

Well, David--it's passed now, I see. I hope you, your family, and your property are all right... --Larry Sanger 18:42, 13 September 2008 (CDT)

Tornado rips roof off of my hotel

Well, we had to be saved by the Jersey Village Fire Department after the hotel that I evacuated to had its roof ripped off during the huricane. It was the second (top) floor that I was in. About 3 am, firemen pounded on our hotel door, Motel 6 in Jersey Village, demanding evacuation. About 100 ft. of our hotel roof was ripped off by a tornado as the hurricane passed by. We leashed the dogs and rushed into the 80 mph winds and huddled in the office until the 80 or so of us were bussed to the Jersey Village Baptist Church a few blocks away. We were evacuated from our evacuation!! Pictures of the hotel have been playing all over Texas, so you might have seen it nationally as well.

On a brighter note, I saw my house in a new satelite image and the living quarters are still standing. The bottom storage area has been ripped away. My mother-in-law's house suffered similar damage. Everyone is very curious as to why the government refused fly-overs above Jamaica Beach and surrounding areas for so long. David E. Volk 02:00, 17 September 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for the update, David--amazing. I'm very glad things weren't worse than they could have been. --Larry Sanger 22:23, 19 September 2008 (CDT)

Rental house - water up to top of front door

I was able to inspect our rental house, and the water line was exactly up to the top of the front door. What an unholy smell inside! Our poor renter, a medical student, has lost everything. Yesterday, six scientists, including me, ripped out 5000 sq. ft. of muddy filthy carpet from our NMR spectroscopy center so we could save millions worth of electronics from getting ruined. Previously we determined that all four electomagnetics were still doing running, not a single quench. The university emergency power saved our pumped magnet. I still haven't been able to get to my residence yet. David E. Volk 08:03, 20 September 2008 (CDT)

How's it going? Having a break from the hard work of cleaning up? Sounds like misery. Chris Day 08:25, 24 September 2008 (CDT)

They are letting the masses back into Galveston today, so we are taking the day off to avoid many hours of traffic delays. I got to our house in Jamaica Beach, and the living quarters, being about 14 feet high, are fine, only flooding underneath in the storage area, which received about 4.5 feet of water. David E. Volk 08:41, 24 September 2008 (CDT)

If you ask me, these people (click on Street View) are very, um...brave. --Larry Sanger 08:54, 24 September 2008 (CDT)

Please join us for Biology Week!

Hello David, Yeah, with you digging out of mud, I'm sure this is going to happen, but I thought I'd just give you this anyway. I am giving you this personal invitation to join us this week for Biology Week! Please join us on the wiki and add or edit biology articles. Also, please let your friends and colleagues who are biologists, biology students, or naturalists, know about Biology Week and ask them to join us, too. Any way you can help make it an event would be most welcome. Think of it as a Biology Workgroup open house. Let's see if we can kick up activity a notch! Thanks in advance! --Larry Sanger 12:36, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

The first Biology Week took place here from Sep 22-28, 2008.

broke my right hand

I will be inactive due to breaking my hand and hurricane recovery. i hope to be back and active by mid november.David E. Volk 06:11, 30 September 2008 (CDT)

Good luck with both! Daniel Mietchen 06:14, 30 September 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for nominating Henry's Law

David, thanks a bunch. How is your hand now? Has it recovered fully? Milton Beychok 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a bit I think. The alignment seems too poor. Might need to find a better quack. David E. Volk 20:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

David, I had a hip replacement last December and I've spent the next 10 months trying to find someone or something that will relieve the pain I am still having. I'm sure that's no consolation to you, but I thought it might be of interest. Milton Beychok

Piquet

Your change was not done consistently. Peter Jackson 08:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the lack of clarity in the explanation of point. That's exactly the sort of feedback I need. I think, subject to decisions by the games workgroup, that the reader should be assumed to know almost nothing about playing cards & their terminology, though it would be rather impractical to explain some very basic terms like shuffle & cut. Anyway, see what you think of my revised wording. Peter Jackson 08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Circularity

Thanks for looking at Incentre: I have made some comments at Talk:Incentre and Talk:Incentre/Related Articles explaining why I arranged things the way I did. Richard Pinch 07:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

I see you are a man on a mission, your last four hours work is very impressive. By the way, how is your hand doing? Chris Day 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

David, is that you or your definition writing machine! Nice going. We definitely need a definition write-a-thon. Any way, your efforts are not going unnoticed. :) Chris Day 17:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem on nominations for article/draft

I have no difficulty with your suggestion. Frankly, I'm much more concerned with trying to find other editors for Approval; the "of the week" isn't that big a thing other than that I thought it was a way to draw that attention.

Several other articles are in the close-to-approval stage, but there just don't seem to be active Computers, History or Military editors. Even lower-case e-diting is nice but not happening. When I'm not actively writing, my efforts seem to be in dealing with either trying to guide either non-neutral or orphaned articles, or to try to get new contributors to focus on an article itself rather than metadiscussions about CZ policy and practice.

I suppose I'm not sure what energy does get generated by "of the week"; I had been hesitant about adding anything else. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and why?

Hi, David:

Thanks for nominating Bar (unit) and Partial pressure for approval.

I don't understand why you nominated Henry's Law for re-approval. It was already approved. Would you please explain why you felt it needed re-approval ... not that I really mind what you did, I just want to understand why.

Thanks, Milton Beychok 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(With tongue in buccal cavity) While I recognize this term is disambiguated, I find myself, at least until more coffee is ingested, unable to get the "Davy Crockett" song out of my head, with the verse "killed him a b'ar when he was only three" being especially persistent. Should this persist, I may need to visit a bar (place of serving of flavored ethanol).Howard C. Berkowitz 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Weren't piano bars particularly in vogue in the 1980s? Aleta Curry 04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Asian names, especially Vietnamese

I have not tried to follow that sorting convention in the Vietnam metadata, although I'd be perfectly open to having it in redirects. I recommend extensive use of redirects, but use of the form in which the name is most commonly written.

While I can't speak specifically to the origin of Bao Dai, that's a specifically royal name. When he abdicated, he was known as Vinh Thuy for a time, and I don't know which, if either, was the family name.

There are many names de guerre. I forget the exact translation of Ho Chi Minh, but it wasn't his birth name, Nguyen Tat Thanh‎. For many years, he was known as Nguyen Ai Quoc, or Nguyen the Patriot.

One of the leading Communist theoreticians was called Truong Chinh, which is sometimes written Chinh, Truong. He was born Dang Xuan Khu. "Truong Chinh" is the Vietnamese for "Long March"; he was a Maoist. Should he be indexed under "March, Long"? The two-word names often are not family name-two word personal name. For that matter, I created a redirect Chinh, Truong. Should there be a redirect Chinh Truong as well, neither, or both?

We have no simple answer, but I don't think assuming that Bao or Dai is the family name. While I'd have to verify it, I believe he was of the Nguyen dynasty. Should we be indexing Elizabeth Windsor; Windsor, Elizabeth; or Saxe-Coburn-Battenberg, Elizabeth? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm delighted that someone is looking at the Vietnam articles at all. As you may have realized, I've been trying to deal with that whole area of articles, perhaps to make it a case study of how to deal with a complex subject such as a major war. WWII would, however, be a lot tougher if everyone seemed to be named Nguyen. Unfortunately, I don't read Vietnamese, so I get stuck on how to deal with things like the Annamite House of Nguyen and Bao Dai. There are lots of Asian nuances, such as "Hirohito" properly being called "Emperor Showa" after his death. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Approvals!

Hi David, I was able to perform the mechanics of approval on Bar (unit), but since you wrote most of the other article Ketoconazole, I have to wait till you get two more editors on board. Congrats on the other one! D. Matt Innis 20:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dien Bien Phu

A pleasant surprise! Do the French still lose in this production?

Seriously, there's been some very substantial of what has been Vietnam War, and there's talk page discussion of retitling. I've put a placeholder at Wars of Vietnam, 1858-1987; more eyes on the existing main article and subarticles are welcome. It would nice if we had someone with expertise on the post-1975 wars, but we don't even have an article on Cambodia.

Howard C. Berkowitz 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Ideal gas law for approval

Hi, David. I have just nominated Ideal gas law for approval. Since I worked on that article to some extent, 2 more editors are required to join in the nomination. I am inviting you and Paul Wormer to join me in the nomination. Regards and Happy New Year, Milton Beychok 17:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I am "nagging", but I would really like to have you collaborate in improving Ideal gas law to the point where it can be Approved. Regards, Milton Beychok 23:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nosy MC strikes again, this time with accomplices!

So, Davey-boy, I nominate you to put yer $$$ where yer mouth is and host the first experimental write-a-thon adjunct Sunday session on the 11th January 2009 for the working folks, and let's see how it goes. Heeeeeee!!! Aleta Curry 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

NMR Approval

Hi David, please see this. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

I request you to review the NMR spectroscopy article for approval. Can you suggest a third editor for this? Sekhar Talluri 04:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your approval.Sekhar Talluri 23:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi David, can you please take another look at the changes I made since your approval? Besides, I just noticed that clicking your "Email this user" link produces an error message:

No e-mail address

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Return to Welcome to Citizendium.

--Daniel Mietchen 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Daniel. I had to re-allow e-mail from other users after I updated my e-mail address in January. Silly me, I assumed that my old prefs would still apply! Anywho, I will look at NMR stuff this weekend. David E. Volk 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Supercool

As distinct from supercooling, certainly a form of high approval in various dialects and subcultures. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC) :-)

Apropos of silly observations, is Sympathetic Magic a change to the Citizendium page, or to a similacrum of the Citizendium page? I don't think I want to look to closely at sympathetic magic versus virtual reality, or even virtual software. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychopharmacology of guilt

Now you are making me guilty to have filled in the disproof of the absinthe myths. :-) Benzodiazepine, probably; I'd guess a longer-acting one like clonazepam.

Seriously, did I get the redirects right? I always thought of AZT as zidovudine, as well as ZDV, the original AZT coming not from the nonproprietary name but a contracted chemical name. The motivation for me to do this was AIDS denialism, which is well meant but needs some clarification and sourcing. It appeared that the previous AZT redirect should have gone to ATZ. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever acronyms I used in the articles came from the 3 big drug sites. They should be correct, but of course many acronyms are used for multiple things. David E. Volk 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Might have been a transposition typo on ATZ and AZT. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arrow + text

$A\;{\stackrel {(90)_{x}}{\longrightarrow }}\;B$

--Paul Wormer 08:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Literature editors?

David, in your capacity as an Editorial Personnel Administrator, do you know whether we have any currently active Literature editors? Thanks. Bruce M.Tindall 01:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If they exist, they have sure escaped *my* scrutiny! Hayford Peirce 01:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automatic

May I ask you to revert "semi-automatic"? Also, please don't change full-automatic, half-duplex, full-duplex, etc. I can clarify the article further, but the term, in engineering, is not limited to firearms. It's used for any number of industrial tools (e.g., think of a nail gun that requires a trigger pull for each firing, as opposed to a production line tool that inserts fasteners until the magazine is empty.). Duplex modes are not unique to cables.

In any event, an adjective is often more descriptive than a noun phrase in both describing an idea, and also in linking without piping. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I really have to disagree. Even if one was speaking only of things that fire ammunition, "semi-automatic firearm" is not the military usage for other than small arms; "firearm" is much more a legal than a military term. Depending on size, one speaks of machine guns, autocannon, and semi- or full-automatic artillery.

Wearing my hat as a computer scientist, "full-automatic" is not used for such things as debits: something is either automatic or indefinite, while individual electronic transactions are just that. The idea that adjectives cannot be article titles, as far as I know, is not an established policy; I personally object to it based on customary usage in a number of fields. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you are looking at this with a Military/machine mindset. To you, semi-automatic implies first weapons, and then other machines, not processes. The fact is, this adjective could be used in many ways that neither of us can think of. I am simply trying to make the title more specific. Semi-automatic is an adjective, not a noun. So write articles about Semi-automatic firearms, Semi-automatic weapons systems or whatever, but not semi-automatic. If we were writing an encyclopedia of limited scope, such claiming of adjectives for title would be ok. If we can be more specific in titles, it saves us all time in the future by avoiding renaming and redirects. If, however, you actually plan on changing the article to cover all areas of automation and semi-automation, then these terms could be used. If you are restricting your discussion to military or machines, then these terms are not correct for the article. So I won't change it back, but I can't stop you from doing so either Howard. David E. Volk 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In this same way, I won't rename Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy to Nuclear, leaving out the implied words used in my world. Nuclear also doesn't imply a Nuclear Weapon, even though it does for many people without physics and chemistry backgrounds. David E. Volk 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the reason that "MRI" has replaced imaging (as opposed to nonimaging) nuclear magnetic resonance. Indeed, I wrote nuclear weapon, never having thought to use other than the phrase. Nevertheless, there are different types of weapons (as well as industrial processes) that use semi-automatic or full-automatic as qualifying adjectives for terms other than "firearm". A rocket launcher, for example, can be semi- or full-automatic; many discussions of weaponry do not treat rockets (i.e., reaction motor operating outside the launcher) as firearms (i.e., all reaction inside the launcher).

I'd also note that I would agree with you had I said "automatic", but I was very careful to write "semi-automatic" and "full-automatic". In a computing standpoint, different adjectives would be used such as "automated", and I would never use "automated" as a standalone term. Semi- and full-automatic are principally terms for weaponry, or for a subset of manufacturing equipment whose operating principles are drawn from the feed and actuating mechanisms of weapons. Note that the articles were assigned to the Military Workgroup and made no claim of applicability other than to that field. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you should move the articles to Semi-automic weapon or Semi-automatic (Military). If author disambiguate their own articles, others like me won't change them to undesired new names. My beef is with the whole idea of using adjectives to create ambiguous article titles. David E. Volk 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles ready for approval

Milt has listed vapor pressure, relative volatility, and specific heat ratio at CZ:Ready for approval. I believe he is the primary CZ author for all three. Could you have a look and see if you'd be in favor of approval? Thanks, Joe Quick 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

David, Joe asked me the very same question. As far as I know, one editor can do the job. Will I take the first two and you the third, or do you have a preference? I'm completely neutral on it, I'm also willing to do all three or none.--Paul Wormer 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a single editor should be able to do the job for any of those articles. (I've simply learned to cast the net widely when it comes to volunteer projects. :-) ) Thanks for your help. --Joe Quick 22:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Biochem subgroup

just wanted to let you know there is a subgroup called CZ:Biochemistry Subgroup. If you could add Biochemistry to the sub (1, 2, or 3) in the metadata that would be great for any Biochem articles you are part of! Tom Kelly 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you officially say that biochemistry subgroup is allowed to be affiliated with bio and chem workgroups, mr editor?

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Biochemistry_Subgroup/Affiliation

Thank you! this is how gareth did it if you want to see his... http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Physiology_Subgroup/AffiliationTom Kelly 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Physiology subgroup

There is also a physiology subgroup CZ:Physiology Subgroup Spread the word. Tom Kelly 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

don't have time now but probably should make a pharmacology subgroup, eh?

what do you think, should we make a pharmacology subgroup? CZ:Pharmacology Subgroup Tom Kelly 22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

why cut out so many sections?

I just was just looking at: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Category%3ABiochemistry_tag

why cut out so many sections of articles? I noticed a few 2,000+ removals. Just curious. Tom Kelly 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at one of the changes at random -- it was the removal of external links at the bottom of the article. Are all the others? Maybe David finds them problematic for some reason? Hayford Peirce 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to remove anything, except for excess directions on filled MetaData pages. All other edits were merely opening and resaving pages to make them so up on the Biochem Subgroup page. I will have a quick look. David E. Volk 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

David, asking a favor of you

David, I have just finished writing an article about Gasoline in my sandbox at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox. I would very much appreciate your spending 15-30 minutes reviewing it and giving me your comments on my sandbox's Talk page at User talk:Milton Beychok/Sandbox.

At this point, I'm not seeking detailed copy edits or detailed rewordings. I just want your overall impressions of the article and its contents and any very major points you may wish to offer. Milton Beychok 21:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

David, I saw your reply on the talk page. Do you think it's at approval level already? With you and a few other editors working full time, Citizendium might actually catch up with Milt Beychok! --Joe Quick 03:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Approval process for Animal

Mr. Volk, I've been working on the Animal article, and I've just finished up its draft. Could read it over and see if you could initiate the approval process for it? I'm pretty proud of it, and I'd love to see it garner approved status. Sincerely, Joshua Choi 23:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Benzylpenicillin

Yes, I meant to do that. Benzylpenicillin was the first penicillin in clinical use, and was the first to be degraded by penicillinases (specifically, penicillin beta-lactamase). Methicillin was developed as the first semisynthetic penicillin resistant to degradation, although it suffered from the problem of requiring parenteral administration.

My very first independent research as an undergraduate dealt with competitive inhibition of penicillinase, and penicillin G was the substrate I was trying to protect.

Other early, non-resistant penicillins were penicillin V, which was stable on oral adminstration, and an iodine-substituted variant, penethemate hydriodide, which was supposed to be less allergenic. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

hello ...

and thanks, David! Peter Schmitt 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving

How can I move an article to a name occupied by a redirect? Moving an article leaves a redirect, and this prevents moving another article there? (It should be possible to delete a "useless" redirect.) Is there some help page on this matter? Peter Schmitt 10:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I (probably) have discovered the solution: speedydelete. Peter Schmitt 13:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You can move an article onto an existing redirect, as if the redirect doesn't exist. Caesar Schinas 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And when you use speedydelete, you should give the reason and signature as instructed on the speedydelete page. - {{speedydelete|REASON|~~~~}} Caesar Schinas 13:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vector rotation

David, I wrote a section vector rotation as part of an article on the rotation matrix. In it I derived eq. (1) of T. Möller and J. F. Hughes, which I believe is the quickest way to build a rotation matrix. I gave an alternative formula for the case that this equation breaks down. I believe that my alternative formula is a little faster than the Householder formula that you gave in Vector rotation. I'm quite interested in your comments. --Paul Wormer 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stent

Are changes to Stent ok? I merge in content from percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Feel free to edit or revert. - Robert Badgett 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stent changes look fine Robert. David E. Volk 11:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominated Drugs banned from the Olympics

Hi, David. Please have a look at this. Milton Beychok 19:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Ketoconazole for approval

David, I would like to nominate Ketoconazole for approval. But first there a few quite minor revisions that are needed:

• The Related Articles subpage needs to be formatted into the current standard of using the {{r|article name}} template and the following format:
  • Parent topics (listing Chemistry, Health science)
  • Subtopics (listing Biochemistry and others?)
  • Related topics (listing, at least the five articles that are in there now)

• Delete the External Links section header and move all of the current External Links section to the External Links subpage. Then move the References section header up so as to replace the empty space left by removing the External Links section.

• On the main article edit page, delete one of the two line spaces between the bottom of the infobox and the first sentence of the article.

Regards, Milton Beychok 03:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, David. Have you had an opportunity to consider this yet? Please let me know. Milton Beychok 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Status change

David, I have changed the status of Neighbourhood (topology) to 1, but it still is listed under "Developing". Is this list not updated immediately? Did I miss something? Peter Schmitt 08:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Drugs banned from the Olympics

Please see here for a few approval comments from Anthony Sebastian. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 23:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominations of Ketoconazole and Drugs banned from the Olympics

David, I just nominated Ketoconazole for approval.

As for Drugs banned from the Olympics, please let me know when you have completed your edits as suggested by Anthony Sebastion and I will then update the version to be approved (on the Metadata template). Thanks, Milton Beychok 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Medical drug templates

Can you please check this topic at the end of User_talk:Robert_Badgett and check whether I am making the correct recommendations? Thanks - Robert Badgett 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug article Approved!

Congratulations, David the Olympics drug article was just approved (I hope) -- this time the process took, with my new, improved instructions written by me and continuously updated as I go along, 24 minutes! Hayford Peirce 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Steroids

David, I think the Steroids article very good as it stands. Obviously, one could further elaborate, but you seem to have incorporated the essentials. As time permits, I will further evaluate the treatment of the medical aspects. I did a little tweaking of the Intro.

BTW: How do you create the images of the chemical structures? Do you use a program for that? Anthony.Sebastian 03:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Keto article now approved!

Hi, David, the approval was just approved, correctly, I hope! Hayford Peirce 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry's Law

Hi David, please see this. D. Matt Innis 02:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We need feedback

David, please look at This thread in the forums. We need some feedback in that thread. Milton Beychok 06:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific method

What do you think about initiating the approval process for the article on the scientific method? It seems like it is well developed and ready to be approved. (I have left the same message for Paul Wormer and Daniel Mietchen) --Joe (Approvals Manager) 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Arrows

David, Jitse Niesen gave here an overview of the arrows you may use in reactions and equilibria.--Paul Wormer 10:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Command	Displays as
<math> a = b^2 </math>	$a=b^{2}$
<math> a = b^2 \, </math>	$a=b^{2}\,$

The arrows you use in the equilibrium reaction look a bit weird to me. I haven't read any chemistry texts lately, but I think \leftrightarrows or \leftrightharpoons give a symbol closer to what is commonly used:

Command	Displays as
<math> \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{B} \stackrel{\textstyle \leftarrow}{\rightarrow} \mathbf{AB} </math>	$\mathbf {A} +\mathbf {B} {\stackrel {\textstyle \leftarrow }{\rightarrow }}\mathbf {AB}$
<math> \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{B} \leftrightarrows \mathbf{AB} </math>	$\mathbf {A} +\mathbf {B} \leftrightarrows \mathbf {AB}$
<math> \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{B} \leftrightharpoons \mathbf{AB} </math>	$\mathbf {A} +\mathbf {B} \leftrightharpoons \mathbf {AB}$

Your comments about Joule-Thomson effect

Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate them since the only people who seem to study my articles are you, Paul Wormer and occasionally Howard Berkowitz. I have responded at Talk:Joule-Thomson effect. Milton Beychok 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

David, have you had a chance yet to look at my responses at Talk:Joule-Thomson effect? Milton Beychok 04:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Chemical elements

David, what you wrote in your sandbox agrees to a large extent with what I wrote earlier (although I do have a few very minor comments on your text). From our agreeing I conclude that your (and mine) definition are pretty standard among chemists. Anthony Sebastian, who is not a chemist, changed my text to something more flowery and elevated, but to my feeling to a text that is not quite to the point. What do you say, how do we proceed from here?--Paul Wormer 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

From here, we merge the two into a new document, perhaps here on my Sandbox (or yours), then move it to the chemical elements talk page and propose a switch be made. Alternatively, we can "rule" such changes are necessary. David E. Volk 13:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

new user

I see you accepted an editor application recently from User:Donald_Paul_Martin. Editorship in the computers and engineering workgroups makes sense but the editorship in linguisitics is not immediately obvious. Was that intentional? There seems to be a bug that makes a person an editor in every single area that they show an interest in if they are accepted as editors when they first apply. It's not always obvious whether that it what happened though. --Joe Quick 03:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Amine_gas_treating/Draft

Milt has made some changes to the draft and suggests that it could be reapproved. What do you think? --Joe (Approvals Manager) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

David, I just want to let you know that I corrected the poor wording that you pointed out in the Amine gas treating article. I also apologise for not informing you sooner. Milton Beychok 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

David, I have implemented an answer in the article to your further question about the amine concentrations in the circulating aqueous solution. See the draft article and also my Talk page. Milton Beychok 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: your message about initiating the re-approval process. Yes, just replace the old link in the url= field with the link for the new version to be approved. Then put your name into the ToA editor= field, put five tildes in the now= field, and put the target date for approval into the date= field. Let me know if you need anything. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The link you provided in the url= field points to a version of the talk page. I think you wanted http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Amine_gas_treating/Draft&oldid=100577762 --Joe (Approvals Manager) 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, David. As pointed out just above by the Approvals Manager, the link you provided for re-approving Amine gas treating/Draft still needs to be changed before it can be approved. Would you please do that? Thanks, Milton Beychok 16:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium charter drafting commitee nomination

Hi David, You've been nominated by a fellow Citizendium member to be a candidate for election to the Citizendium charter drafting committee.

If you haven't been following the discussion in the forums, we're getting ready to establish a charter for Citizendium that outlines the project's goals, ideals, and basic structure. To get the process moving, we put together a plan for electing a group of Citizens to compose a draft of the charter, which will then be submitted for community review. You can find more about the plan here.

You've been nominated by another Citizen to be a candidate for election to that committee. The next step is up to you: you may either accept or decline the nomination by going here and following the instructions at the top of the page.

If you have any questions, just let me know. --Joe Quick 14:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination page

David, go to CZ:Charter drafting committee. Then in the Nomination section you will see click here. Do that and it will take you to where you can accept or decline your nomination. Or you can click on that same link just at the end of my previous sentence. Regards, Milton Beychok 03:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Amine gas treating

That looks good! I took out your name from the time section. I always forget if it's 3 or 5 ~ for time only. D. Matt Innis 00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Joule-Thomson effect for approval

David, thanks for your nomination. However, you set the date for final approval as today's date (Sept. 26th). I don't think that is really what you meant. Please have a look at it. Milton Beychok 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reapproval van der Waals equation

Hi David, 2 years ago you approved van der Waals equation. Yesterday I made some updates (if you go the draft's history and compare the latest version with the October 9 2007 version you will see what has changed). Could you please approve the draft? Thank you. --Paul Wormer 08:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

10 editors that have never shown up

Hi David,

I don't know if you are following the discussion on the Editors and editorial issues forum thread, "How to recruit and retain active editors?", but Hayford claims you and Roger Lohmann have collectively and recently approved editorship for 10 editors that haven't done anything. (See that thread, reply #57). When I asked Hayford if he would contact them and ask them why they went to the trouble of having their credentials approved and then didn't do anything more, he said he didn't want to waste his time. In my view, finding out why editors are registering and then doing nothing else is an important issue. Would you be willing to contact those of the 10 that you confirmed and ask them that question? P.S. I am asking Roger Lohmann if he would do the same thing for the editors he approved Dan Nessett 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re approval of Joule-Thomson effect

David, I made some small changes to comply with comments by Karl Schubert. Then, Daniel Meitchen made some changes as well. Neither Karl nor Daniel updated the url of the version after they joined you in the approval. Would you please update to the latest url of the version to approve? Thanks, Milton Beychok 15:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just completed an article on petroleum crude oil

David, I just finished an article on petroleum crude oil in my sandbox at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox. Feel free to comment on its Talk page. I have not yet run it through a spell checker, so there are probably spelling errors. I will probably load it into the article namespace tomorrow afternoon/evening. Milton Beychok 08:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the typos that you picked up. I've fixed them all. By the way, just a gentle reminder that Henry's law still needs re-approval. Regards, Milton Beychok 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Joule-Thomson effect approval tomorrow

David, please see comment by Hayford Pierce at Talk:Joule-Thomson effect Milton Beychok 22:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry's law again

Hi David, Milton has made what appears to be some minor, yet important content edits to this article and suggests that we re-approve again. How does it look to you? D. Matt Innis 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)