Revision as of 03:41, 20 October 2017 editInternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Pending changes reviewers5,387,809 edits Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6beta)← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:40, 21 October 2017 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,461 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Glycerol/Archive 1) (botNext edit → | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
I made a few minor edits, hopefully to be less "pedantic" | I made a few minor edits, hopefully to be less "pedantic" | ||
] (]) 05:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC) | ] (]) 05:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
== Glycerin smoking == | |||
Electronic cigarette use is technically not 'smoking' - there is no combustion. The process is considered vaporizing or atomizing. Not sure what the section should be named since just saying 'vaporizing' might not be clear to everyone - maybe 'Glycerine Vaporization and Inhalation in Electronic Cigarettes' ? ] (]) 05:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
There is no info or studies on smoking glycerol... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:There are studies now, and more in progress. Not sure if that info should be linked from here or in the e-cig or e-liquid page. ] (]) 05:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
I mean I'm just a random kid In jersey but I'm smoking 90% glycerol 10% glycerin right now, with flavors and nicotine of course. Its technically vapor (vaporizing or vaping) but its actually reallllyyyyy big right now and its getting bigger. There's got to be a way to add that under applications <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: There is a section on Electronic Cigarette Liquid with links to the e-liquid and electronic cigarettes pages. Is that enough? ] (]) 05:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Viscosity == | == Viscosity == |
Revision as of 00:40, 21 October 2017
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Moved comment to talk
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.222.46 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 October 2010
Stereospecific numbering
I noticed that my addition of information about sn-nomenclature was removed/reverted with the statement: "NOTTEXTBOOK and pedantic".
I added a section on stereospecific numbering and naming as this is very important in understanding the nomenclature of plasmalogens. The stereospecific nomenclature is not adequately explained on any of the existing Misplaced Pages pages and most appropriately fits within the page on glycerol, since glycerol-derived biochemicals are almost always described using the sn (stereospecific numbering) system.
I added background on the numbering system itself to show why the numbering system exists and why it is necessary.
The Misplaced Pages styles regulations regarding "writing like a textbook" were not violated. Facts were presented, but not in a style to "teach subject matter". I did not have:
- leading questions
- systematic problem solutions as examples
It may have been pedantic, which is a negative way of saying I was precise and meticulous, but I don't see that being a pertinent problem in any of the Misplaced Pages style guides. Furthermore, the edit shouldn't have been removed -- but the pedantic nature could have simply been edited out (if that was the problem). When information is missing, and someone adds it to a page, I don't think the solution is to remove the needed information, even if it isn't written 100% to par (but I am new to this)
I admit that I am new to this, and open for a more detailed reasoning for the removed edits, as well as suggestions to improve my writing style, but the information is a needed addition to Misplaced Pages.
For now, I am re-adding the information Tmbirkhead (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I made a few minor edits, hopefully to be less "pedantic"
Tmbirkhead (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Viscosity
Used as a viscosity-modifier, as in ink —DIV (120.19.16.240 (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC))
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glycerol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/hort2/mf2446.pdf - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012040650/http://newhope.com/nutritionsciencenews/NSN_backs/Apr_99/backtalk.cfm to http://www.newhope.com/nutritionsciencenews/NSN_backs/Apr_99/backtalk.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Categories: