User talk:Beranay

May 2010

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Carbonic acid. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Tetracube (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Hello Beranay, I noticed your recent edits to Carbonic acid. I must again remind you that the article pages are no places for discussion. If you think part of the content of the article is incorrect, please discuss it here instead: Talk:Carbonic acid.

Continually adding your questions/discussion into the body of the article itself and ignoring requests to stop can be cause for blocking, as is edit-warring. Please understand this and place your questions/discussions in the appropriate places. Thank you.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You will not get answers if you post your questions in the article. Simply because it is removed as vandalism and no one ever reads it. If you had placed it correctly where it should be, you would have had an answer by now.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonic Acid

Yes, but placing the challenge on the article itself is the wrong way of doing it. Again, please use the Talk Page of the article to discuss not the article. You have been told this many times. If you keep placing it on the article itself, no one will read it because it gets removed immediately as vandalism. That might be the reason why nobody has ever replied to you.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 08:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disagreement

Quote: "This concerns the declared "undid revision 411580909 " by Beranay talk 217122153158. This refers to the article "carbonic acid"and the following "remark" quoted in the subsequent article. I am sure there is an important error in this article.This is why I am trying again to have some exchange with this author, but without success. Why? Bera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beranay (talk • contribs) 10:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)"

Because you are putting your questions in the wrong place. You are deliberately writing your questions into the article itself which constitutes as vandalism. If you want to speak to the specific author then try his talk page, do not vandalize the article by asking your questions on it. May I ask what your native language is? Someone who speaks your language may be able to explain the reasons better.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for understanding. As for the edit functions on the articles themselves, they are there simply because anyone can edit the articles. Volunteers like you and me are actually the ones writing the articles. However, this does not mean that you can write anything on it. Everything on the articles have to be backed up by references. Everything is also patrolled by other people who monitor pages for vandalism or mistaken edits.

Each article has a talk page, similar to the ones we have on our user pages. That is where we discuss the article, not on the articles themselves.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Carbonic acid This concerns the "remark" leading to H+ concentration at equilibrium. The author gives a result using certainly a too crude approximation which gives very different values for "carbonate concentrations" in aqueous solutions. In fact, a more rigorous relationship, leading to H+ concentration, must also be used in this case. After some substitutions and taking account of the different equilibrium constants, a term in H+ concentration remains in a secondary degree equation (in H+ ). When solving this secondary degree equation, one is facing an indetermination (of the form zero over zero). The classical Hopital rule may thus be used in order to solve this indetermination. As a result, it is found that when carbonate concentration is ten to the minus four the corresponding pH is seven and when carbonate concentration is ten to the minus six, the corresponding pH is six. So, the carbonate concentrations are found to be of several orders of magnitudes greater than the values proposed by the author.

I am not an expert in the subject I'm afraid. To clarify, please post what you have posted here at the bottom of this page: Talk:Carbonic acid --Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]