User talk:Sekhar Talluri

Welcome!

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Stephen Ewen 13:17, 11 January 2008 (CST)

welcome #2

It is nice to have another chemistry author join, especially another NMR guy!. You might want to check out the Core Article initiative for the list of core articles suggested for chemistry so far at:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Core_Articles/Natural_Sciences

or double check my list of nmr experiments page here:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/List_of_Nuclear_Magnetic_Resonance_experiments

If you have any questions, don't be shy about asking. David E. Volk 08:10, 12 January 2008 (CST)

suggested links for the NMR article

You might add these links to your article A complete list of atoms that can be used for NMR experiments can be found at NMR_active_elements. A list with explanation of many NMR experiments can be found here List of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance experiments

Also incorporate protein structure into the text?

Welcome #3

Dear dr. Talluri: Welcome to CZ!

I like to tell you the following: when you edit you see a line with icons on top of the edit screen starting with B (bolding text). The tenth icon from the left gives a signature, when you click this you get: --~~~~. This is translated into your name and date. It is good practice to end messages on discussion pages by this (although sometimes people, including myself, forget this).--Paul Wormer 02:34, 13 January 2008 (CST)

approval mistake

I can't see why it thinks I approved it. I still need to read it. I am hoping someone will fix this. I will read it thouroughly in the next few days and make suggestions before sending for approval. David E. Volk 16:41, 16 January 2008 (CST)

I got this problem fixed.

Please join us for Biology Week!

Hello Sekhar, I am giving you this personal invitation to join us this week for Biology Week! You're a Citizendium Biology Author and we need authors as much as editors here to get involved. Did you know that there are over 200 biology authors here? Yep! Please join us on the wiki and add or revise biology articles. Also, please let your friends and colleagues who are biologists, biology students, or naturalists, know about Biology Week and ask them to join us, too. Any way you can help make it an event would be most welcome. Think of it as a Biology Workgroup open house. Let's see if we can kick up activity a notch! Thanks in advance! --Larry Sanger 14:51, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

The first Biology Week took place here from Sep 22-28, 2008.

LaTeX problem

I see that you have a LaTeX problem. I have the same problem. I wrote a posting on the forum and I mailed to Larry Sanger. --Paul Wormer 13:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Angular momentum (quantum)

Sekhar, why did you delete a very large part of Angular momentum (quantum)? You know that deletion of somebody else's work is very unusual here at CZ. It only happens after consultation of the original author. --Paul Wormer 16:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, at least, after an adequately lengthy explanation on the talk page. --Larry Sanger 16:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Make that a very lengthy and thorough explanation. Note that the figure is gone, all references are gone, historical intro is gone. If it is not a simple mistake we have a problem. --Paul Wormer 17:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I had NO intention of making ANY changes to your article on Angular momentum - only reason I went into edit mode for Angular momentum is to see how to format the brackets for a unrelated equation in the NMR spectroscopy article which I am editing. If ANY changes have been made by me they must be entirely accidental - from my (very little experience) on citizendium it appears that any older version of an article can be restored. Please discard EVERY change that I made to the Anglular momentum article. Very very sorry. I thought that every time I went into edit mode on the angular momentum article, I quit using 'cancel' which I assumed would restore the original article without any changes. Again, very sorry if there is any change. But I am sure the article can be restored to the previous state - just discard all changes, if any, made by me. Sekhar Talluri 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Angular momentum article is restored. Hope all is OK. Again, sorry for the trouble. Sekhar Talluri 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. I'm very glad that it was just a mistake. (I have some Wikipedia experience and there a change like that would be malicious. I'm relieved that it is not the case here.) I will be happy to read your NMR article and approve it.--Paul Wormer 18:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ---

Well, I would not rule that out in this case as I do not remember deleting anything. However, it is likely to be due to some stupid action on my part as I have not read the manual.Sekhar Talluri 20:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For my part let me just say I'm glad you are still here after a year! Welcome back! --Larry Sanger 19:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I work on this only during holidays. I am planning to submit this article and then add stubs later for additional details.Sekhar Talluri 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NMR approval

Hi Sekhar, I left a note here. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)/constable

Hi, Sekhar. You entered my name on the Metadata template as an Approval nominator for the NMR article without asking me if I wanted to be a nominator. That is not to be done in Citizendium. You must ask appropriate Editors if they wish to place their name in the article's Metadata page. You must not do it for them. Although I am a Chemistry Editor and a Physics Editor, I do not feel qualified to review or to nominate this article for Approval. Please remove my name from the Metadata page.

I realize that you are very new to Citizendium and please excuse me if this posting sounds too harsh. I only want to be sure that you understand that you must ask editors if they wish to sign their names as Approval nominators. Best regards, Milton Beychok 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sekhar, as Milton has stated, please make sure you have an editor's permission to put their name on the metadata template, or better, yet, let them put it there themselves. Use the talk pages to bring everyone together and agree to approve the same version. The date on the template says tomorrow (17th), so you might still have some time to get their input, but otherwise, you need to remove their names and wait till you have three editors endorsing that particular version. Make sense? You wouldn't want someone putting your name on a version of the article that you did not read, right. D. Matt Innis 02:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)/constable

Good morning (here), Sekhar. I saw your note to Milton Beychok. I see what you were trying to do! Hopefully, you now see what to do - leave a message on those editors' talk pages and invite them to take a look and see if they might be ready to approve the article. You can also use the mailing lists to see if you can get others to take a look. When you all agree, then use the metadata template! I do appreciate your work and enthusiasm, so keep going and if you have any questions, do feel free to ask me on my talk page. D. Matt Innis 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sekhar, Just to note that the approval process is not exactly transparent. It would be great if you have any ideas on how to make it more user friendly. Your NMR article looks great. Chris Day 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated it for approval today. Great job on the article. David E. Volk 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Becoming an editor

Hi Sekhar, you have some friends here that are wondering why you are not an editor. I would like to invite you to apply as an editor here. I can't guarantee anything, but I'd say you have a great shot and that would surely solve a lot of our Approval problems. D. Matt Innis 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)/constable

Hello Sekhar, I second that and wish to encourage you to consider this small but possibly important step. --Daniel Mietchen 10:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I won't bother you with editorship for now but I'd like to read your opinion on labeling your article as "Liquid-state NMR spectroscopy" (or so) in the proposed MR scheme, with some portions remaining at NMR spectroscopy. Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems OK. The article does make a few references to studies other than liquids/solutions, but it is basically about solution/liquid NMR spectroscopy and the title can be changed without changing the contents. Basically this was supposed to be an introduction to biomolecular NMR spectroscopy with details specific to biomolecules to be covered in a separated article, hence there was no reference to concepts considered essential for solid state NMR spectroscopy such as CP or Magic-Angle-Spinning. However, spectroscopy of proteins/nucleic acids is carried out in solution and not in the liquid state. Also, most applications of NMR spectroscopy, even in the case of small molecules, are carried out in solution - therefore 'solution NMR spectroscopy' may be slightly more appropriate. You may also call it 'high-resolution NMR spectroscopy' which would cover both solution and liquid state NMR spectroscopy, because most of the discussion in the article is applicable to both. The word 'high-resolution NMR spectroscopy' is sometimes used to distinguish studies of solution/liquids from those on solids/oriented systems where the primary concern is regarding line-broadening.

If some of the contents have to be shifted, as proposed, it is also OK as the remaining article seems self-consistent. However, too much fragmentation is not good. To the extent possible, it should not be necessary to refer to a second article, to understand the current article. However, if you need more details, it is nice to be able to go to other articles by following the links included in the current article. Some duplication of contents is probably beneficial in such cases.

Well, when you get ready, do make sure and let me know and I'll point you in the right direction! D. Matt Innis 01:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)