1068:] as apparently the outcome of the last dispute and the resulting ban did not make such things clear. To summarize: He/she has chosen a different obscure unit-like scaling procedure and is trying to synthesize a well defined unit based on selective use of a few literature examples in combination with the widely accepted rules of metrology. Very elegant work that might be a good idea, but novel nonetheless, and thus not for Knowledge. I am not a primary participant in the dispute. He/she has also been going over much of the material that he/she was banned from (for 1 year) and is persisting in the course of action that he/she was banned for now that the ban is expired. I have not been policing these actions and the pages have fallen into subtly novel/POV pages.--
196:. Thank you for finding any errors, however you need to point them out for me to be able to correct them. I would remind you again that if you can not backup your claims with specific uses of m/q (Th) in the scientific literature within the context of mass spectrometry it will go nowhere. Please I am waiting for your sources not your interpretation of guidance documents and novel suggestions of what is the best path forward for the greater scientific community. Please act in good faith under the policies of wikipedia. Please stop removing my disputed tags on
1156:" as defined by Kehrli have been used exactly once in the primary literature, if that. There are many other similar uses but none of it is standard. It's actual use is, similar to how Kehrli describes it, sloppy, jargony and variable between sources. The dispute is whether we should summarize and report this "as is" or if we should improve this situation and correct the inconsistencies between this jargon and standards to synthesize a "correct" usage and definition consistent with the more general rules in Knowledge space.--
481:). I see nearly 15 removals of the "Disputed" tag - which is a very unneeded editing war, in my opinion, because it really isn't that important, because, since you are edit warring, the matter is obviously not settled, and putting a tag up there helps. The edit war is not needed. If Nick broke your "truce", let him break it, and talk with him about it. Don't go to the article and start editing again, because it only makes matters worse. I'm going to drop this matter and let more experienced users do their job. Goodbye.
856:
745:
391:
engaged in any vandalism. If what you said was accurate, he has only been in an edit war, and will be treated as such. Filing a RFA does not in any way breaks
Knowledge rules - it is the process of trying to secure it. If the RFA is wrong, it would be rejected, and you would not be in any way harmed. I do not know how you have personally been offended, but warning him for something he did not do, i.e. Vandalism (see
1737:
you have some valid concerns about accessibility of science articles, however your editing patterns and accusations were disruptive. I still do not think that you will have any issues editing other articles because we're not out to "get" you; however if you feel strongly that every branch of science is off-limits you can file a request for amendment of that remedy to be more clear in what areas you are prohibited.
1844:
1606:
42:, and see if anybody's interested. We have rules here, and they can be a royal pain in the ass sometimes (not unlike Imperial Standard), but as a community we try to be constructive, not destructive. You have a username and you know what you're talking about in terms of knowledge. You can be a part of this grand experiment in creating a commonwealth of information. Drop me a line at
1017:/299792458) and then the unit length is defined from that and the definition of unit time. But SI identifies the unit length to be a base unit, not the unit speed. But on the other hand, SI defines the unit current to be "base" and from that (and the definition of unit time) the unit charge is derived. But most of us are convinced that
1226:
understand this article, it must be written according to the consensus on scientific terminology instead of the insider jargon that is not understandable by the broader public. Thanks god there are papers that actually use the correct terminology. We should just use the language of those. This is not OR as
Kkmurray falsely claims.
1861:
Hello Kehrli. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the
English Knowledge, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey
1736:
I never said you did not source your assertions. Rather that you were using sources, for example, that did not expressly define kendrick mass as supporting it because you felt there was no other realm of interpretation available. ArbCom doesn't get involved in the actual content, but conduct. I think
656:
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z. Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation. Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this
395:
for an explanation of what is
Vandalism), is not the right way to solve the problem. I do not know much about the content dispute you two are getting into; if I were you, I would keep calm and let the things cool down, and try to hear what others are saying, because most of the times the problem is a
144:
I think nobody would have a problem if you wrote something along the lines of "Many practicioners of mass spectrometry use the unit m/z; however, many other physicists have argued that this is incorrect, and that m/q should be used instead, for the following reasons..." That would certainly be useful
1380:
I would invite you to the talk page of the mediation page where the earlier discussion already occurred. Each party has made brief statements to aid me in helping you. I ask that you please write a statement as well, discussing possible places of compromise and what you believe is the focal question
1082:
I have looked at some of the discussion regarding this matter. As is to be expected, I understand little or nothing of it, but do know that
Knowledge needs to use standard notation. Please identify what notation is currently being used and use that notation. If a new notation is coming into use that
390:
Let others, more experienced users decide for you. Since he has filed a RFA there would be plenty of people that has the ability to resolve the dispute. Personally I don't think he deserves to be blocked or warned, and your warning template was terribly misused, because the person has not in any way
71:
that can very analytically be proven wrong. We try to explain this to smart people that should be experts in the field (the mass spectrometrists). If this is so hard, how can you ever hope to fight other misconceptions that can not analyticaly be proven (e.g. in politics) to common people that are
360:
I think Nick should be blocked from editing any mass spectrometer articles as long as he does not keep to the rules of our truce, as long as he continuously placed tags without giving reasons why, and as long as he places RAF against me only because I edit according to the terms established in the
200:
related articles. I am acting in good faith by not editing them but simply waiting for your sources and noting that it is in dispute. I very seriously dispute the content of those articles and have yet to see new sources added and those that are there contradict the content of the article. I have
1182:
Kehrli is using his interpretation of the tertiary sources IUPAP red book/IUPAC green book/ISO 31 to justify rejecting all of the scientific literature on
Kendrick mass (dozens of publications in the past decade).The standard notation is Kendrick mass = observed mass x (nominal mass/exact mass).
25:
quantities. Idiocy. In that case, we can make anything unitless. Like, we can make my heaight to mass ratio unitless by dividing my mass by 1 kg, and my height by 1 m. What does it accomplish? Nothing. I agree with you 100%. Spectrometrists seem to have had a hard time with units over the
1213:
Fred: don't believe
Kkmurray a word. The "dozens" publications he mentions all use a DIFFERENT terminology that contradicts each other. What is more important: they contradict the consensus on scientific terminology and in some cases they contradict simple math. I can prove it. I looked up the
1225:
Every child can see that these are not the same formulas. And both formulas are wrong when reading them according to the rules of the scientific consensus. It is exactly as Nick says: all papers are written sloppy, jargony and terminology varies between sources. In order for a wider public to
400:
in this case because you seem to have misunderstood some important points). Actually, I believe it is you, not him, who actually broke the rules so far, but that is hardly relevant to what I am saying. Having a content dispute and being in an edit war does not justify the use of the vandalism
323:
Nobody forced you to do anything. You can do whatever you like, and the only thing to keep in mind is follow the rules. Putting a warning is to remind the user not to do something that breaks the rule - which is of no value if you are "forced to do it". Moreover, I think you have a major
1008:
is that these are the units defined first (chronologically or pedagogically) and get established first and then the derived units come later. I also can understand that different systems of units can have different sets of base units. And there is no real consistency. For example, in
90:
My own (and I suppose many of the other voters') only reason for opposing this article has been the idea that
Knowledge should not be seen to advocate one thought over another, even if we have knowledgable editors here who are very certain that this thought is correct. Our policy on
576:
measuring instrument to read a physical quantity it was designed for results in a fundamentally dimensionless number. it's in the interpretation of that reading and knowledge of what it uses as a standard to measure the physical quantity, that we attach units to the reading.
1035:
Now, I am not sure what should be done with the semantics here, but I think we better stick with the convention of base units vs. derived units. Although I understand precisely what you are trying to say. So I plan to change (not just revert) some of what you wrote in
473:, a very, very long edit war and very close to breaking the 3RR for both of you (You have made 3 reverts on 22nd July, 3 reverts from 1st to 2nd August in less than 24 hours, etc.). These edit wars generally do not help anyone, and even if you did not break the 3RR, in "
1752:. You expressed a die-hard view that your proffered side was the "best", and you consistently combined oblique references from standards books in a way not expressly stated in those books to support your assertion that kendrick units were the ones to use. You displayed
332:
Filing a RFA is absolutely not vandalism, and your warning template in his user talkpage is a misuse. You can simply keep your head cool, read more about the rules, and be nice. Wikipedians here generally give people a lot of chances. Good luck.
86:
Hi Kehrli, I noticed you apparently singled me out in your criticism of the deletion votes on your article. I can understand your frustration, and I will readily admit that I'm every bit as ignorant of this field as you thought I was.
1717:
indefinite, in that the ban will only be rescinded after an appeal, and an appeal will only be successful if you demonstrate you've learn from your previous behavior and show evidence of good editing outside the realm of the conflict.
1183:
Kendrick mass has the same units as the observed mass, no new unit of mass has been defined or needs to be defined. The new unit of mass that Kehrli has defined is original research and inconsistent with multiple verifiable sources. --
173:. It is still a little confusing but I think it isn't too misleading or incorrect. It isn't too much of a leap for the reader to figure things out given teh example. Congrats. One bit of criticism: your PDF link is to Groucho Marx?--
1770:
The evidence is in the case pages and the linked evidence. The ultimate difference here is you don't believe that you gave some sources undue precedence; it's interpretation of what's there. I really don't have much else to add.
1032:, that different quantities (universal and non-dimensionless physical constants) are chosen to define each system, yet, for comparison, the same "base units" are defined in each system so that they can be directly compared.
302:
regarding the disruptive behaviour of Nick and his constant pushing of minority POV I would say the line between vandalism and content dispute (he no longer uses arguments to prove his case, he just uses lobbying) is very
1862:
takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
121:
it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable
1926:. 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
1724:, which I and the other arbs unanimously found that you distorted, selected, or combined evidence to suit your own view about Kendrick mass units, and that you were tendentiously editing to assert that view.
20:
unitless, because it clearly is not. People claiming that it is are apparently using a stupid trick whereby they divide the mass and the charge by 1 Dalton and the elementary charge to form supposedly
245:
Please do not post warnings for vandalism on Nick Y.'s userpage. I do not believe he has engaged in any sort of vandalism. Rather, from what I have seen in RFA, there appears to be a content dispute.
365:. As far as I understand the Knowledge rules, the only way I can ask for his blocking is to place those warnings first, even though I don't really want to. What would you do in my place?? --
1581:
997:
Hi Kehrli, I don't want to get into a content dispute with you or anyone else. I can read here that you have a history of changing content in such a way that you sincerely believe is more
970:
67:
Ed, Corbin, thank you guys for your support. In some way this is really frustrating, but in another way this is a very exciting social experiment. Look at it this way: we try to fight a
1517:
879:, as this gets no relevant mentions on Google Scholar or Google Books, whereas "The Matt Kendrick Unit" is a band. If not a hoax, then it is a non-notable idea of a non-notable chemist.
1759:
In short: hey, you might be right about the whole kendrick thing. But you were incredibly disruptive and tendentious in all your actions. I really do not have anything further to add.
135:"we try to fight a misconception that can very analytically be proven wrong. We try to explain this to smart people that should be experts in the field (the mass spectrometrists)"
141:
commonly accepted knowledge among a significant part of the scientific community. In which case, Knowledge is not the vehicle to tell these guys what to do and what not to do.
1274:
720:
712:
704:
698:
263:
Dear
Aranherunar, I did not like to place this warning. Unfortunately I was forced to place it. By Nick and his disturbing behaviour. Here is a short list of what he did:
1449:
and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the
Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
974:
806:
798:
790:
784:
809:
during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --
1565:
I reverted your recent edits. I don't think that any of the parties in arbitration (myself included) should make edits on mass and unit articles while the case is open. --
723:
during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
1634:
1255:
1045:
992:
1560:
1354:
1304:
543:
1878:
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated
1421:
I have posted a compromise proposal on the bottom of the mediation page. I hope you will look through the proposal and consider it for your approval. Regards,
696:
81:
1494:
1490:
782:
658:
1748:
You fought to make your preferred views on kendrick units standard in the articles, even when other editors expressed concerns that you were not following
1687:
824:
649:
572:
and some of the lit in physics about this. just as when one counts tick marks (a dimensionless number) on a ruler when they measure length, when we use
154:
528:
524:
482:
402:
334:
246:
1122:
In the opinion of Nick and Kermit "standard notation" is the jargon that is used by some people (not by all people) in their narrow field of science,
1049:
509:
827:
159:
1617:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
1955:
1574:
1793:
1713:
First off, it's not an "unlimited" ban. You're restricted from metrology-related articles and their talk pages, not from unrelated fields. It
839:
1298:
762:
727:
629:
that he doesn't agree with you about this and that his and my disagreement became one of semantics and convention. but the edits you did to
118:
it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
818:
538:
436:
Ok, you did persuad me. I did remove the warnings and wait for the arbitration. Could you please give me a hint where I broke the rules? --
1816:
1812:
1635:
1486:
668:
1787:
1702:
1249:
581:
1453:
1879:
1619:
Please stop canvassing and accusing other users of sockpuppetry. Everything you post or say may be used against you in the arbitration.
1353:
844:
1777:
1765:
1743:
650:
520:
510:
1316:
963:
986:
1828:
1805:
1430:
1408:
1390:
1374:
1292:
1267:
1555:
1139:
758:
491:
440:
411:
369:
343:
310:
1593:
690:
1905:
1192:
935:
1235:
216:
38:
might be able to help you out with reforming the concensus on this particular scientific unit. Leave a note on the talk page,
1609:
Welcome to Knowledge. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to
1165:
1116:
330:"any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia."
269:
Prior to this he requested a mediation which went quite well and we found strict rules for a truce. (I would leave alone his
1895:
1951:
1819:. Be careful to stay away from metrology topics in your future editing. If not, you may be blocked from editing Knowledge.
1535:
1529:
1342:
1041:
633:
are about substantive understanding of physics, not mere semantics and convention. i'm gonna take the rest of this to the
1867:
1493:. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page,
657:
decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time. All blocks are to be logged at
589:
i moved it back to your talk page, since it started here. the simplest thing is to respond here. i have now clicked the
1346:
641:
616:
1446:
1090:
182:
Thanks for the feed back. The article was on Kmurrays web site and he changed it into a Grucho Marx picture. Nice joke!
177:
1938:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
1096:
Fred: we all agree that Knowledge needs to use "standard notation". We just do not agree what standard notation means.
164:
39:
1673:) is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.
255:
1834:
488:
408:
340:
252:
1077:
1066:] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Knowledge to Kehrli
626:
1947:
1013:, the unit speed is not a identified as a base unit even though, essentially SI defines the unit speed first (as
939:
609:
1629:
774:
1054:
678:
1693:
Please do not edit case pages again now that they are closed. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
1656:) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
1610:
35:
1721:
As to the evidence, the finding of fact is drawn from the evidence page and the related discussions, e.g.,
1670:
1653:
1321:
797:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
711:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
240:
205:
1730:
1943:
1510:
1459:
927:
867:
845:
235:
1475:
931:
201:
been very patient. I will not engage in an argument with you. Cite your sources and I will cite mine.--
126:
57:
475:
severe cases of abuse, warring parties who persist in punitive editing may be subject to arbitration."
1685:
1625:
732:
1548:
1338:
76:
1722:
1480:
470:
52:
43:
1613:
other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
1889:
1614:
634:
594:
535:
1489:. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page,
684:
612:
for a more detailed explanation. Please think about it and let me know your conclusions. --
1087:
957:
754:
733:
637:
page because it's about that. give it an hour, i'll have some response/information for you.
569:
485:
405:
337:
293:
When asked for references to prove his ideas to be in line with international conventions in
249:
185:
1099:
In my opinion "standard notation" means the consensus notation established by the Physicist
1934:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1824:
1698:
1680:
1621:
1445:
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
1330:
1288:
675:
281:
274:
224:
1217:
Formula as claimed by Kkmurray : Kendrick mass = observed mass x (nominal mass/exact mass)
1152:
What needs to be spelled out here for Fred is that the "notation" or "units" in question "
8:
1939:
1541:
1426:
1404:
1386:
1370:
1334:
1126:
and that will not be understood by the wider public because it is so much "off the road".
943:
919:
896:
210:
1365:
article. Would you be accepting of this mediation process opening at this time? Cheers,
1801:
1599:
1589:
1582:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli_2/Workshop#Editing_of_mass_and_unit_articles
1570:
1525:
1471:
1312:
1263:
1188:
982:
908:
835:
814:
770:
47:
1915:
1906:
1884:
1161:
1123:
1073:
904:
630:
605:
553:
549:
297:
he did not reply but just showed examples of old literature using outdated notations.
1518:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Kkmurray
885:
625:
well, if you look at Ed's page where we had the discussion, i think you'll see with
266:
Nick himself thinks this is no longer a content dispute and therefore requested RFA.
231:
and your behavior of removing dipute tags without stating a reason. See you there.--
1935:
1919:
1772:
1760:
1738:
1725:
1708:
1440:
1104:
1084:
1022:
947:
392:
362:
325:
1820:
1749:
1694:
1284:
1018:
884:
While all contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be
593:
for this page. but, i would recommend that the rest of the discussion go to the
1931:
1923:
1422:
1400:
1382:
1366:
1100:
876:
220:
197:
170:
62:
1275:
Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli#Arbitrator views and discussion
1927:
1797:
1753:
1585:
1566:
1521:
1501:
1467:
1362:
1308:
1259:
1184:
1037:
1029:
978:
914:
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
863:
849:
831:
810:
802:
794:
766:
724:
716:
708:
687:
665:
561:
401:
warning, and, again, if it is deserved, it will be put there by other users.
397:
228:
193:
186:
92:
68:
1756:
of articles. You refused to accept any culpability or errors in past action.
1256:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Kehrli
674:
Kehrli, I blocked you for 24 hours for violating the article ban by editing
290:
After I changed the article according to his wishes he still placed the tags
1157:
1069:
686:. During the time of this block you should not edit any part of Knowledge.
604:
Rbj, I agree with Ed and I think you changed back for worse the article of
565:
478:
270:
232:
202:
174:
1660:
1643:
1399:
I have posted opening questions for discussion on the talk page. Cheers,
1227:
1131:
1115:(= the scientist that study measurment in general) which you find in the
1083:
is significant and perhaps could be included in the appropriate article.
613:
437:
366:
307:
73:
34:
Yo. My name's Corbin. I understand your frustration. Listen, the guys at
29:
855:
1112:
557:
280:
However, soon afterwards he engaged in a request for deletion of the
219:
and participate in our new binding arbitration proceedings regarding
744:
638:
578:
287:
Also, he repetedly placed tags on pages without giving reasons why.
192:
I would like to invite you to discuss your totally disputed tag on
1485:
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located
1922:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge
552:
that appears to be based on the same kind of issue you have with
527:. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page,
169:
Just wanted to stop by and say that you did a fairly good job on
145:
addition. It would of course also be a matter of fairness to add
1361:
Hello! I have volunteered to help mediate the conflict over the
659:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli#Log of blocks and bans
26:
decades, inventing such perverse things as the "wavenumber," (cm
1108:
761:
for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
396:
major misunderstanding (I would suggest you to read more about
294:
1220:
Formula I actually found: Kendrick mass (F) = observed mass x
805:
with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
719:
with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
713:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kehrli/mz misconception
102:
ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:
1843:
1040:. But I hope to illustrate the point you made. Stay tuned.
799:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kehrli/(alpha and m/z)
129:, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."
324:
misunderstanding of what Vandalism is. Vandalism is, from
16:
Hi Kehrli, I will support you in the argument that m/z is
681:
1305:
Knowledge:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-21/Kendrick mass
1062:
You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago.
137:- which seems to indicate the idea you are promoting is
1873:
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
1454:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration
1010:
1064:] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen.
1004:
My understanding of the meaning and usage of the term
1001:, but is sometimes disputed (and reverted) by others.
891:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
1813:
agree that you violated your topic ban from metrology
1495:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2/Workshop
1491:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2/Evidence
1028:
And the (again) the problem is for different systems
149:
those other guys prefer m/z - surely, they must have
72:
not experts in the field? It is kind of frightning.
1059:
I received the following note on my user talk page:
1021:is the more fundamental physical quantity and that
519:An Arbitration case involving you has been opened:
529:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Workshop
525:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Evidence
115:it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms;
1914:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
1794:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kehrli
523:. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page,
1561:Edits at Thomson (unit) and mass-to-charge ratio
938:can result in deletion without discussion, and
544:physical quantities, dimension, and measurement
1025:follows conceptually as charge per unit time.
793:, a page you created, has been nominated for
707:, a page you created, has been nominated for
106:it introduces a theory or method of solution;
1817:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2
1815:. A warning is being logged in the case at
1636:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2
1540:Diffs are useful in backing up your points.
306:What would you recommend I should do? --
98:"An edit counts as original research if it
1811:The admins who looked into this complaint
1516:Note that I have posted my evidence here:
1111:, and the standards of the specialists in
1107:, the International Standard Organization
534:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --
651:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli
560:. may i suggest that you take a look at
521:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli
511:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli
217:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration#Kehrli
46:if you need help, okay? Happy editing! -
1677:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
1500:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
610:Talk:Physical_constant#Removed_paragraph
1447:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests#Kehrli 2
993:What is meant by the term "base units"?
903:notice, but please explain why in your
759:Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets/Kehrli
1281:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee
1214:reference that Kkmurray quoted above.
1299:Mediation Cabal case on Kendrick mass
1254:A request to amend has been filed at
1117:International vocabulary of metrology
273:article and he would leave alone the
284:article, thereby breaking the truce.
82:Why I voted "delete" on your article
1788:Request for arbitration enforcement
1250:Request to amend prior case: Kehrli
13:
1842:
886:deleted for any of several reasons
870:because of the following concern:
854:
765:before editing the evidence page.
40:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics
14:
1966:
1940:review the candidates' statements
133:Now, you yourself say above that
1838:
1604:
743:
664:For the Arbitration Committee.
1946:. For the Election committee,
1916:Arbitration Committee election
1907:ArbCom elections are now open!
1642:An arbitration case regarding
987:13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
691:23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
669:18:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
642:03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
617:10:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
548:you made some recent edits to
1:
1956:13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1594:22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
1575:22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
1556:01:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
1530:19:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
1511:15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
1375:06:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
1347:20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
1317:14:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
1293:07:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
739:
582:02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
127:introduces or uses neologisms
109:it introduces original ideas;
36:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
1536:Advice regarding ArbCom case
1476:18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
1431:05:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
1409:23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
1273:This has been declined. See
1268:23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
1236:23:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
1193:21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
1166:20:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
1140:19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
1091:20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
1078:20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
1050:17:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
964:07:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
728:03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
721:User:Kehrli/mz misconception
705:User:Kehrli/mz misconception
699:User:Kehrli/mz misconception
7:
1942:and submit your choices on
1460:Knowledge:Arbitration guide
1391:13:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
942:allows discussion to reach
807:User:Kehrli/(alpha and m/z)
791:User:Kehrli/(alpha and m/z)
785:User:Kehrli/(alpha and m/z)
539:19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
492:04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
441:18:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
412:15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
370:14:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
344:13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
311:12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
256:12:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
10:
1971:
1948:MediaWiki message delivery
1703:19:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1688:17:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
840:01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
819:01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
775:19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
165:Nice job on Thomson (unit)
1896:11:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
1835:Dispute resolution survey
1774:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1762:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1740:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1727:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1630:09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
928:proposed deletion process
753:You have been accused of
236:17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
206:17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
160:20:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
77:14:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
58:04:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1829:04:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1806:16:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
1778:01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
1766:15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
1744:17:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
1731:19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
1381:of the dispute. Cheers,
1231:
1135:
178:23:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
936:speedy deletion process
909:the article's talk page
153:reason for doing so? --
44:User talk:CorbinSimpson
1847:
1580:You can comment here:
1303:Please participate at
1055:Kehrli new POV dispute
859:
801:and please be sure to
715:and please be sure to
635:Talk:Physical constant
595:Talk:Physical constant
1920:Arbitration Committee
1852:Dispute Resolution –
1846:
1326:I have 0 fans left.
940:articles for deletion
868:proposed for deletion
858:
763:notes for the suspect
570:nondimensionalization
112:it defines new terms;
1357:Mediation Cabal Case
1322:My house burned down
676:Mass-to-charge ratio
282:mass-to-charge ratio
275:mass-to-charge ratio
241:Note on template use
225:Mass-to-charge ratio
95:states explicitly:
1924:arbitration process
93:"Original research"
1936:arbitration policy
1848:
932:deletion processes
860:
803:sign your comments
783:MfD nomination of
757:. Please refer to
717:sign your comments
697:MfD nomination of
398:Knowledge Policies
50:
1903:
1902:
1898:
1509:
1350:
1333:comment added by
1124:mass spectrometry
969:Merge discussion
846:Proposed deletion
825:User:Kehrli/alpha
751:
750:
631:Physical constant
606:Physical constant
554:mass spectrometry
550:Physical constant
158:
48:
1962:
1894:
1892:
1887:
1877:
1839:
1775:
1763:
1741:
1728:
1684:
1608:
1607:
1551:
1508:
1506:
1349:
1327:
1105:IUPAC green book
1023:electric current
960:
954:
925:
924:
918:
902:
901:
895:
747:
740:
363:IUPAC green book
157:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1944:the voting page
1910:
1890:
1885:
1883:
1870:to participate.
1857:
1837:
1790:
1773:
1761:
1739:
1726:
1711:
1678:
1640:
1622:PaoloNapolitano
1605:
1602:
1563:
1549:
1538:
1502:
1483:
1481:Kehrli 2 opened
1443:
1359:
1328:
1324:
1301:
1252:
1103:, the Chemists
1057:
1019:electric charge
995:
958:
948:
922:
916:
915:
899:
893:
892:
853:
823:Article links:
788:
738:
702:
654:
608:. Please read
546:
514:
243:
213:
190:
167:
84:
65:
32:
12:
11:
5:
1968:
1913:
1909:
1904:
1901:
1900:
1875:
1872:
1859:
1850:
1836:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1789:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1757:
1710:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1675:
1674:
1639:
1633:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1562:
1559:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1482:
1479:
1464:
1463:
1457:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1394:
1393:
1358:
1352:
1335:Emerson Collie
1323:
1320:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1278:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1128:
1127:
1120:
1101:IUPAP red book
1056:
1053:
1042:71.169.191.235
994:
991:
990:
989:
946:for deletion.
926:will stop the
882:
881:
852:
843:
828:User:Kehrli/mz
787:
781:
779:
749:
748:
737:
731:
701:
695:
694:
693:
653:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
620:
619:
601:
600:
599:
598:
545:
542:
513:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
316:
315:
314:
313:
304:
300:
299:
298:
291:
288:
285:
278:
267:
242:
239:
221:Thomson (unit)
212:
209:
198:Thomson (unit)
189:
184:
171:Thomson (unit)
166:
163:
131:
130:
123:
119:
116:
113:
110:
107:
83:
80:
64:
61:
55:
31:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1967:
1958:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1908:
1899:
1897:
1893:
1888:
1881:
1880:research page
1874:
1871:
1869:
1866:Please click
1863:
1858:
1856:
1855:
1854:Survey Invite
1845:
1841:
1840:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1779:
1776:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1758:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1742:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1729:
1723:
1719:
1716:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1686:
1683:
1682:
1672:
1669:
1666:
1662:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1655:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1637:
1632:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1558:
1557:
1554:
1552:
1545:
1544:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1507:
1505:
1498:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1448:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1363:Kendrick mass
1356:
1355:Kendrick mass
1351:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1224:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:Natural units
1033:
1031:
1030:natural units
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1002:
1000:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
967:
966:
965:
961:
955:
953:
950:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
921:
912:
910:
906:
898:
889:
887:
880:
878:
873:
872:
871:
869:
865:
864:Kendrick unit
857:
851:
850:Kendrick unit
847:
842:
841:
837:
833:
829:
826:
821:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
786:
780:
777:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
746:
742:
741:
735:
730:
729:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
700:
692:
689:
685:
683:
679:
677:
673:
672:
671:
670:
667:
662:
660:
652:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
621:
618:
615:
611:
607:
603:
602:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:natural units
559:
555:
551:
541:
540:
537:
532:
530:
526:
522:
517:
512:
493:
490:
487:
484:
480:
476:
472:
469:For example,
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
442:
439:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
413:
410:
407:
404:
399:
394:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
371:
368:
364:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
345:
342:
339:
336:
331:
327:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
312:
309:
305:
301:
296:
292:
289:
286:
283:
279:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
251:
248:
238:
237:
234:
230:
229:Mass spectrum
226:
222:
218:
215:Please visit
208:
207:
204:
199:
195:
194:Mass spectrum
188:
187:Mass Spectrum
183:
180:
179:
176:
172:
162:
161:
156:
152:
148:
142:
140:
136:
128:
124:
120:
117:
114:
111:
108:
105:
104:
103:
101:
96:
94:
88:
79:
78:
75:
70:
69:misconception
60:
59:
56:
53:
51:
45:
41:
37:
27:
24:
19:
1911:
1876:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1853:
1851:
1849:
1791:
1720:
1714:
1712:
1679:
1676:
1667:
1664:
1650:
1647:
1641:
1618:
1615:welcome page
1603:
1564:
1546:
1542:
1539:
1503:
1499:
1484:
1465:
1444:
1360:
1325:
1302:
1280:
1253:
1153:
1081:
1061:
1058:
1034:
1027:
1014:
1006:"base units"
1005:
1003:
998:
996:
952:
949:
934:exist. The
930:, but other
913:
905:edit summary
890:
883:
874:
862:The article
861:
822:
789:
778:
755:sockpuppetry
752:
734:Sockpuppetry
703:
663:
655:
590:
573:
566:planck units
547:
536:Tony Sidaway
533:
518:
515:
474:
329:
271:mass spectra
244:
214:
191:
181:
168:
150:
146:
143:
138:
134:
132:
99:
97:
89:
85:
66:
33:
22:
17:
15:
1792:Please see
1329:—Preceding
951:Glenfarclas
875:Possibly a
211:Arbitration
1932:topic bans
1821:EdJohnston
1695:Dougweller
1600:March 2011
1466:Thanks, --
1285:Dougweller
1113:metrology
920:dated prod
897:dated prod
591:watch flag
1928:site bans
1754:ownership
1423:Lord Roem
1401:Lord Roem
1383:Lord Roem
1367:Lord Roem
944:consensus
866:has been
627:this edit
558:dimension
393:WP:VANDAL
326:WP:VANDAL
1798:Kkmurray
1750:WP:UNDUE
1709:Your ban
1671:contribs
1654:contribs
1586:Kkmurray
1567:Kkmurray
1522:Kkmurray
1468:Kkmurray
1441:Kehrli 2
1343:contribs
1331:unsigned
1309:Kkmurray
1260:Kkmurray
1185:Kkmurray
979:Kkmurray
832:Kkmurray
811:Kkmurray
795:deletion
767:Kkmurray
725:Kkmurray
709:deletion
688:FloNight
666:FloNight
303:blurred.
277:article.
100:proposes
23:unitless
1158:Nick Y.
1070:Nick Y.
999:correct
877:WP:HOAX
516:Hello,
233:Nick Y.
203:Nick Y.
175:Nick Y.
122:source;
54:Simpson
1918:. The
1886:Steven
1681:Salvio
1661:Kehrli
1644:Kehrli
1638:closed
1611:attack
1228:Kehrli
1132:Kehrli
1109:ISO 31
907:or on
614:Kehrli
477:(from
438:Kehrli
367:Kehrli
308:Kehrli
295:ISO 31
74:Kehrli
63:thanks
49:Corbin
1891:Zhang
973:and
639:r b-j
597:page.
579:r b-j
479:WP:EW
155:Lukas
1952:talk
1868:HERE
1825:talk
1802:talk
1699:talk
1665:talk
1648:talk
1626:talk
1590:talk
1571:talk
1550:Talk
1526:talk
1487:here
1472:talk
1427:talk
1405:talk
1387:talk
1371:talk
1339:talk
1313:talk
1289:talk
1264:talk
1232:talk
1189:talk
1162:talk
1136:talk
1088:Talk
1085:Fred
1074:talk
1046:talk
983:talk
977:. --
975:here
971:here
959:talk
836:talk
815:talk
771:talk
736:case
680:and
556:and
486:heru
483:Aran
471:this
406:heru
403:Aran
338:heru
335:Aran
250:heru
247:Aran
151:some
1912:Hi,
1504:AGK
848:of
682:M/z
661:.
574:any
489:nar
409:nar
341:nar
253:nar
147:why
139:not
125:it
30:m/z
18:not
1954:)
1930:,
1882:.
1827:)
1804:)
1796:--
1715:is
1701:)
1628:)
1592:)
1584:--
1573:)
1543:NW
1528:)
1520:--
1497:.
1474:)
1429:)
1407:)
1389:)
1373:)
1345:)
1341:•
1315:)
1307:--
1291:)
1283:,
1266:)
1258:--
1234:)
1191:)
1164:)
1154:Ke
1138:)
1076:)
1048:)
1011:SI
985:)
962:)
923:}}
917:{{
911:.
900:}}
894:{{
888:.
838:)
830:--
817:)
773:)
568:,
564:,
531:.
328:,
227:,
223:,
1950:(
1823:(
1800:(
1697:(
1668:·
1663:(
1651:·
1646:(
1624:(
1588:(
1569:(
1553:)
1547:(
1524:(
1470:(
1462:.
1456:;
1425:(
1403:(
1385:(
1369:(
1337:(
1311:(
1287:(
1277:.
1262:(
1230:(
1187:(
1160:(
1134:(
1119:.
1072:(
1044:(
1015:c
981:(
956:(
834:(
813:(
769:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.