I need your help
editHi mass-man, you seem like the only person that made useful edits to the Thomson (unit) article and therefore like a reasonable and smart guy. This is why I ask for your help. I am stalked by two Chemists that unfortunately have no clue about metrology. As you know, I try to make sure that articles are written in correct metrological terminology. Now they are planing to ban me again (see here User_talk:Kkmurray/1). I hope you are one of those people that can see that his article Kendrick mass is full of incorrect language (even though it is all taken from reviewed papers) and that my article Kendrick (unit) is better.
Here you find the whole story of the current argument: Talk:Kendrick_mass.
We had an argument before on which they achieved to have me banned for one year from Wikipedia. I still think this ban was incorrect. The argument was about a physical quantity in mass spectrometry, the mass-to-charge ratio. Some in the chemistry branch of mass spectrometry use a "dimensionless" m/z and my claim is that a mass-to-charge ratio by definition cannot be dimensionless and therefore needs a unit and that a symbol m/Q would be more appropriate. I partly won the argument because my article Thomson (unit) is still alive.
The deeper issue on this new argument is that many chemists seem not able to make the difference between a quantity Q = n * unit, and the numerical factor n of a quantity. Please check yourself and I would really appreciate your support. Kehrli (talk) 31 October 2010