User talk:Milton Beychok

New Draft of the Week - formatting test

Hi Milt, I have been fiddling around with the formatting of the Article of the Week and New Draft of the Week and would be thankful if you would play the guinea pig (in terms of testing the documentation) by changing the formatting for the New Drafts. I will also ask Howard and Sandy, so please do one article at a time. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 05:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As you know by now, I really like what you have done to the AOTW formatting. I can see that you have not yet completely done the same thing for the NDOTW. I would be pleased to help by being a guinea pig but I don't understand what you want me to do. Please spell out in detail what you want me to do ... and I will try it. Milton Beychok 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, in principle, it means having a closer look at the documentation of {{Candidate}} and following the steps indicated there, perhaps occasionally peeping into the examples given, searching for occurences of ""onlyinclude" and "includeonly" (in pairs, the first without, the second with leading "/"). It also means surrounding "{{subpages}}" by such a pair of "noinclude" (without and with "/"). Finally, replacing "rpl" in the nomination table by "Candidate" should do the trick. If you have specific problems, please ask again or send me a screenshot. --Daniel Mietchen 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits to air preheater were meant as practice, but for you rather than me. With a little help from Caesar, you now have another sample to look at. Please try to apply a similar treatment to the other NDotW candidates. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

minor revision to the Approval process - just the plain name of the Editors should be used

Hi, Milt, according to Matt Innis, on the Metadata template page, where the ToA editors are listed, their names should be shown (written) as plain Milton Byechok, NOT as Milton Beychok. I *know* that many Editors have been doing it this way, and I have Approved articles in which this info appeared like that. But, apparently, this is both wrong *and* may cause some subtle problems in the final version of an Approved article. If you've got any questions about this, though, please address them to Matt, not me -- I don't have a *klew* as to the rights and wrongs of the issue. Thanks. I bring it up only because I'll be Approved the ket. article in a little while. I'll make the appropriate change in that particular article.... Hayford Peirce 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, problem. Milton Beychok 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Keto article now approved!

I think I did it right this time, Milt.... Hayford Peirce 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In 15 minutes, not bad! D. Matt Innis 00:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-three -- I wrote long Summary box notes for Ruth, and made minor notes on my working Instructions. Otherwise it would have been 15. Am now gonna make a couple of minor revisions on the Instructions at the Kops page and links.... Hayford Peirce 00:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Boo-boo

Milt, that boo-boo looks like one of those things you don't want in your approved article. Since you wrote the article and David Volk approved it, if you want me to change it I will, so long as we leave a message on David and Joe's talk pages. If there is a problem, they can let me know and I will change it back. D. Matt Innis 02:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would be well to fix that boo-boo in the approved article. That way, it doesn't have to wait for a Re-approval. So have at it (including alerting David and Joe). Milton Beychok 02:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. D. Matt Innis 02:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :-) --Joe(16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)) Approvals Manager

Chemical elements

Hi Milton, addressing you as a chemistry editor I like to know what you think about Elements. Or, more specifically, about the definition: "an element is a substance with unique physical and chemical properties".

When I think of a substance I think of a crystal, or a liquid or gas consisting of molecules. Take the simplest element, hydrogen. It exists as a gas of molecules, a (cold) liquid consisting of molecules, different kinds of crystals also consisting of molecules, and probably (although never found yet) a metallic lattice of H-atoms. And as you know, hydrogen chemisorbed on the surface of a transition metal catalyst (like nickel) exists in atomic form. Now which of these substances is the element hydrogen?

Let me make the analogy with the alphabet: there are 26 letters, but a letter is not a word or a sentence. There are ca. 100 elements, but an element is not a molecule or a solid. Some words consist of one letter, some molecules consist of one atom (noble gases). In my view the definition "a letter is a word with a unique meaning" corresponds to "an element is a substance with a unique property". I find both definitions wrong. What is your opinion? --Paul Wormer 05:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul, before I can respond meaningfully, what definition would you propose as an alternative? Than I will try to respond tomorrow, because I'm on way to bed right now. Milton Beychok 05:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope you had a good night sleep when you read this. I wrote an earlier version of the article and in the meantime I didn't change my mind. If you go back in the history of Elements you see what I had to say about it. In short: atomic species of which there are 94 naturally occurring and about 20 man made (the latter are short-lived, don't form molecules, and are observed only as signals on a measuring device, would you call them substances?). Maybe the analogy with letters in the alphabet would be helpful? (I thought of it just today).--Paul Wormer 07:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I gave it some more thought: Crucial, of course, is the meaning of "substance". Would one call diamond and graphite the same "substance"? If not, how does one define the element carbon? Would one call an artificial nucleus that lives 1 microsecond (as those with Z > 100) a "substance"?--Paul Wormer 13:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Paul, my first suggestion is that the article be re-named "Chemical elements" and that would avoid the need for a disambiguation page which would eventually arise.

Since you and Anthony Sebastian are the two most recent contributors to the Elements article, and I liked many aspects of both versions of the introduction, I decided to try and write an introduction that sort of merges what the two of you wrote. I also tried to use simpler wording and to avoid being too pedantic (I hope). My suggested wording is in green font:

In chemistry, elements are types (or species) of atom. All solids, liquids and gases are composed of atoms, either of one species or a combination of species.

There are 94 different elements (or atomic species) that occur naturally on Earth and each element has its own unique physical and chemical properties. Some elements are very abundant. For example, water is composed of the elements hydrogen and oxygen and water is very abundant on Earth. As another example, the element carbon is an important part of all animal and plant life on Earth as well all of the fossil fuels (natural gas, petroleum and coal) which are the remains of plant material that once lived.

Some of the 94 elements are very rare on Earth such as the gas neon. Some elements are stable and live for very long times while some, known as the radioactive elements, have finite life times and decay into other elements while emitting radiation. For example, plutonium is a well-known radioactive element.

In addition to the 94 elements that occur naturally on Earth, about 23 other known elements that do not occur naturally on Earth have been man-made and are characterized by having very short life times and being radioactive.

[I believe there are 118 known elements but I thought one of them has not yet been synthesized. Thus, 117 - 94 = 23 man-made]

I suggest that the next paragraph should begin with these words:

Each of the elements is distinguished by its unique integral number Z, known as the atomic number. The number Z is .... (without using the expression "we recall")

I also suggest that atomic isotopes and allotropes also be discussed somewhere in the article.

Also, regarding the quote from Aristotle at the top of the article (what Anthony called an epigraph), it is a bit too "artsy" for my taste and I would prefer to remove it ... but that is just my personal opinion.

I would like to say that all of my comments above are simply my comments as a fellow author. They are not to be taken as decisions made as part of my role as a Chemistry Editor.

Finally, Paul, I strongly suggest that you should move all of the exchange of comments by you and I (here on my talk page) should be moved to the discussion page of the article. Milton Beychok 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)