Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:06, 27 July 2012

Archive 1

Archive 2

HgF4

Hi I changed one of your edits and feel compelled to open a dialogue since you seem to be a regular and diligent editor here. We're all in this together. HgF₄ is a real weirdo in the inorganic world. Its existence, which is ephemeral, has captured the attention of specialists, but it is hardly a benchmark reference compound that would be invoked in conversations among chemists. I mean how many Hg(IV) species does one encounter? So I think that for reference compounds we should stick to more common entities, like PtCl₄ and AuCl₄. In Wiki-lawyer-speak, citing HgF₄ is probably WP:UNDUE.

I also think that terminology when discussing compounds should be simple, since we want to demystify chemical knowledge vs wrap it up in technical jargon that even confuses good chemists. That is my beef with "valence isoelectronic" and the other (IMHO) hairsplitting terms for various kinds of electronic relationships. Actually, these classifications appeal to me personally, but I have been trying to force myself to simplify my language for Misplaced Pages for the sake of accessibility.

But I can see that you might have other views, which would be interesting to hear. Thanks for listening and best wishes. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reichskommissariats

I am perfectly aware of the German plans for Soviet territories, but the status of these territories varied and was complex. Quite simply, they were occupied territories under civil administration. I assume it is entirely possible that some authors describe some (though certainly not all) reichskommissariats as "quasi-colonies" or something along those lines, but its a stretch to just write them off as "colonies" and say "reichskommissariats were colonies". They certainly shared many aspects of colonies, but its a gross oversimplification to simply designate them as such. The best thing to do is to simply link to the main article - reichskommissariats were reichskommissariats, that's the best description. -- Director (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A colony is an area of country A under civil occupation by country B in preparation for colonization of occupied area by country B. The Reichskommissariate are thus textbook examples of colonies.

Also, you are making a persistent spelling error; the plural of "Reichskommissariat" is "Reichskommissariate", as Reichskommissariat says in its first sentence, NOT "Reichskommissariats". Whoop whoop pull up 05:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not much of a wiz at German spelling, sorry :). -- Director (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the article says right in the first sentence that the proper plural is "Reichskommissariate". Whoop whoop pull up 05:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, your point being...? -- Director (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not necessarily the definition of a "colony" (were the British planning to populate India with Englishmen?). Reichskomissariats are not textbook examples of colonies, not even close. They are like colonies but cannot be simply described as "colonies". Did the Germans intend to colonize Reichskommissariat Norwegen? if you think so you'll need a source for such a claim. Their status is explained in-depth in the article, and the said article is the best way to describe them.

You know, your Lenin is a bit off at my resolution.. you should move the fellow a bit to the left :). -- Director (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, hope that fixes it...Whoop whoop pull up 05:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Third paragraph of Reichskommissariat:

"All of these entities were nonetheless intended for eventual integration into a Greater Germanic Reich (Grossgermanisches Reich) encompassing the general area of Europe stretching from the North Sea to the Ural mountains, for which Germany was to form the basis."

Thus implying German colonization. Whoop whoop pull up 05:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Please see WP:OR. -- Director (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you ignore the massively obvious genocide of native populations in the Reichskommissariate and the resultant settlement with немцы (translation: Germans)?

No. Do you? What are we talking about here? If you're asking whether I'm aware of Nazi atrocities I think I might start to get insulted at this point (and yes I can read Cyrillic, in my language its nijemci). -- Director (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Germans were colonizing the Reichskommissariate with Germans. It is impossible to ignore. See Википедия: Вам не нужно ссылаться на том, что небо голубое. Whoop whoop pull up 05:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Again: I'm not ignoring anything, and I do know what you're talking about. Like I said, some Reichskommissariate (the two in the СССР) were like colonies, shared some of the aspects - but it is an oversimplification to equate Reichskommissariate with "colonies". -- Director (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So these Reichskommissariate were colonies:

• Ostland
• Ukraine
• Kaukasus
• Mosowien
• Don-Wolga
• Turkestan

and these weren't:

• Norwegen
• Niederlande
• Belgien-Nordfrankreich

? Whoop whoop pull up 06:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand me. I will repeat: some Reichskommissariate shared some aspects of "colonies", but it is an oversimplification to label them as such. And I assure you WP:BLUE does not apply in this issue, not by a long shot :). Any challenged claim needs to be sourced. -- Director (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Должны ли мы согласиться на перемирие по этому вопросу? Whoop whoop pull up 06:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Mind you, I can read Cyrillic but I don't speak Russian: the most I can do is "divine" what you're probably saying :). But what truce did you have in mind? -- Director (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I get your point, they aren't all really colonies. Whoop whoop pull up 06:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian either, or read Cyrillic. I used Google Translate for all that. Whoop whoop pull up 06:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

RD question about guns

You are now in violation of WP:3RR due to your actions at Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Converting_semiautomatic_guns_to_full_auto. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry... Whoop whoop pull up 04:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And to add to your woes:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I've got better things to do (like sleep) than waste time on such ridiculous pantomimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring in general is bad enough. But edit-warring on the ref desk?? Come on. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the question, find an answer somewhere else. At this point, if you continue to ask it, it turns into not just edit warring but disruptive editing, for which you can be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

To correct your confusion, yes, automating your weapon might be illegal. Depends of course on where you live, but no one is going to answer it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing up my misconception about that. I actually didn't know that it might be illegal. Whoop whoop pull up 06:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Some science to be dropped: In the U.S. automatic weapons are regulated heavily. HConverting one from semi-auto to full-auto except under very specific circumstances, IS illegal, as the National Firearms Act considers that the creation of a new machine gun subsequent to the 1986 ban. There are some exceptions, but they are either limited (certain kinds of federally licensed firearms dealers that sell to law enforcement) or extremely expensive (purchasing a pre-ban weapon, which are pretty rare and can cost into the hundreds of thousands of dollars). It is something that the ATF takes extremely seriously, so I'd highly advise dropping the issue. ⇒SWATJester 07:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)