User talk:Physchim62/Archive 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Phosphorus Halides[edit]

Molecular Structure of Phosphorus Pentafluoride

To celebrate or commemorate your preparation of the new Phosphorus halides article, I have created and uploaded this picture of phosphorus pentafluoride (PF5). It could be made larger or smaller by changing the px width on the edit page. Shall we add this picture to your new article? I reviewed your new Phosphorus halides article and Reference 1 of an article I started called Phosphorus chlorides. Reference 1 in Phosphorus chlorides article says the phosphorus pentachloride (PCl5) is molecular in vapor and liquid phases but ionic in the solid phase as [PCl4+][PCl6-]or similar species. Reference 1 also said that PCl5 in some liquid solvents also has an ionic structure. Because at room temperature PCl5 is a solid, it was a good idea that you put the qualifier in the PCl5 picture I had. Reference 1 also says that PF5 has the trigonal bipyramid geometry in all cases, which agrees with your table.

Another reference I looked at today confirmed the geometry of the POCl3 molecule, so I am leaving that picture as it is in as well as the PCl3 picture. I am continuing to work on the Phosphorus chlorides article whenever I get a chance. H Padleckas 05:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Assessing the WikiProject Chemicals pages[edit]

Good progress, PC!! Well done. I appreciate the work you do on it. And I mostly agreed with your initial assessments sofar. But don't take it amiss when I think you are too harsh in the 'other important compounds'. May I recommend that you grade several of the 'Stub' into a higher group? And some of those B-Class also may well be considered A-Class. Is there a reason why you are so much stricter in this group than in the others? When in doubt, I graded the articles in favour of the author (just being friendly). Wim van Dorst 13:59, 2005 May 29 (UTC).

  • No, I didn't set out to be harsher to the "Other important compounds" articles, maybe I'm just in a bad mood today! I'm currently preparing a summary of my assessment activity to highlight the issues that have struck me: in the meantime, if you feel that my assessment of any article is unjustified BE BOLD and change it! :) Physchim62 16:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Axel Gyllenkrok[edit]

Would you please reconsider your VFD on this page? A user came along and translated the article, and your reason to delete - it not being in English - is no longer valid. Mgm|(talk) 15:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

re: Transwiki cleanup[edit]

When you have a minute, I've replied to your comment on Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load#Transwiki cleanup. Rossami (talk) 17:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bikini line[edit]

I notice that you had added the vfd boilerplate to Bikini line at 14:52, 11 May 2005 which was 7 minutes following the completion of the first VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bikini line. You did not, as far as I can see, complete the nomination by placing it at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and opening a discussion page. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion for more information. If you added the boilerplate message mistakenly, please revert it. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for looking into it! I've edited the template to show it's disputed, for the time being. I suppose that copyrighted images qualify for deletion? And is there a more appropriate tag for those images that turn out ok, or should this tag be reworded? Radiant_>|< 21:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Cool! Well done! The template is probably going to be deleted as confusing, unless we can find some lawyer-type to properly word it in the next couple of days. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh sorry, I thought you meant it could be deleted ("Overall, deletion of {{PD-Germany}} would not cause WikiChaos, even better would be to improve it to reflect the very law that the current templates cites", and since we've been unable to get a lawyer type to do the latter...) What should we do then? Reword the template to state "This image is alleged to be public domain in Germany, even though we aren't sure, and even though German copyright law doesn't necessarily apply in Wikipedia"? (or something less extreme, anyway) Radiant_>|< 09:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Terpenes and terpenoids[edit]

Hi, I noticed that a duplicate category (Category:Terpenes) was created recently, which has been listed for deletion, because there is already one for terpenes and terpenoids. I made it broader, so that we could include things like menthol. People often refer to terpenoids as terpenes but others might object- I didn't want to start arguments. Should we makeTerpenes into a redirect to the established category? We had a similar problem with Category:Sulphur compounds vs. Category:Sulfur compounds) resolved in that way. Cheers, Walkerma 21:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sodium sulfate[edit]

PC, Thanks for moving this page. Are you planning on beefing up this page to Class-A, or should I have a go at it? Cheers Walkerma 16:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good work![edit]


Hello, I noticed you've been doing great work on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English lately. Thanks for that and keep up the good work! Best regards, Sietse 17:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arsenic trioxide[edit]

Hi, I wanted to mention that the German page on this has a lot of content, it may be worth looking at if your German is better than mine. Also, while you're on a roll, consider doing Bi2O3 as well :) Cheers, Walkerma 21:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hitlerjugend image[edit]

I never used any template, you are wrong. I put it in the Hitlerjugend article, someone must later have removed it, so it was in use in an article at a point.


Cool! Thanks for the effort. Radiant_>|< 11:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

== Hitler and chamberlain image

I didn't place that tag, somebody else put it on there. I've changed it to Fair Use. Thanks for the update.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dale Velzy[edit]

You may wish to list this article over at Copyright Problems. It's taken from here [1]. JamesBurns 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polish article[edit]

Hey; thanks for the note, but I can't take credit for the page. I just happened to come across it right after its creation and make the talk page. I'll make a note of the proper procedure for translation, though - quite useful. Thanks, jglc | t | c 23:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Have a nice time, PC. We'll work hard in your absence, honest. Wim van Dorst 21:15, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC).

Structure Images[edit]

I know your on holiday now but i'll say this anyway or else i'll just forget. You said on walkerma's talk page that you recomend exporting the file as tiff then converting to png because it offers better quality. I disagree. Windows meta files are vector therefore of infinite quality; it depends on the resolution it is rendered at. TIFFs are bitmap therefore of only finite quality. It obviously doesnt matter if you export the tiff at a ridiculous resolution but I though i'd point this out anyway. Borb 20:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Molecule editor[edit]

On the talk page of WikiProject:Chemistry you advised me to download ACD/ChemSketch (a molecule editor) so that I could write complicated equations. So I did. I printed out the (long) tutorial and started the steep learning curve. Finally I succeeded in writing the equation of the polyether formation and I even could put this equation into a Word document (using paste as...). But I cannot paste it into a Wikipedia article. I used IE7 and Firefox, but to no avail. There is just "paste" in the Edit meu and no "Paste as". Can you explain to me how to proceed ? And enjoy your holiday... JoJan 08:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Rhodium trichloride[edit]

Hi PC, Sorry, I didn't realise I was blundering around in your core area of expertise from your PhD work, I just thought I should add more since Wim highlighted it, and I happened to have a specialised (albeit old) book out on heavy transition metal halides (though of course G&E provided much!). I note that you removed the paragraph about anhydrous RhCl3 being insoluble like CrCl3- don't worry, I bow to your superior knowledge on that score (I have never used RhCl3 in my life!)- but can you explain the parts that are wrong, I did a thorough trawl of the (book) literature before I wrote it up. I just want to clear up the mystery! I hope you're enjoying your time in sunny Caistor- I'm currently working from a student hall of residence at Brandeis University, where I work over part of the summer. Cheers, Walkerma 16:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

For #UnspecifiedDeity's sake Martin, don't worry! Your edits are fine, they've given me some more ideas as to how to expand this article. I thought I had been specific on my talk page note: you cannot really call anhydrous RhCl3 a complex as it has an infinite lattice structure (CrCl3 if I remember correctly, though I will check before adding this; complexes have discrete 'molecular'-type structures), and it is soluble in water (it just takes a lot of coaxing). I will work on the article in August when I am in Caistor (and so have access to my PhD thesis with the necessary refs). Currently I am in very sunny Capellades, about 50 km inland from Barcelona, so major edits are quite difficult (I have a hard-copy rework of Ammonia to type in when I get a moment, plus the amino acid data, plus a whole load of verb conjugations...). Cheers for now. Physchim62 18:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. BTW, I didn't think I'd offended you, I was trying to be mildly amusing, but it's hard to do that in ASCII. Can you check chromium(III) chloride, it has a lattice structure (YCl3) according to what I wrote, so maybe you need to delete my ref to it being a complex. I was trying to make it clear that it is coordinatively saturated (18e-) because of all of those bridging chlorines, and kinetically inert, and that's why it won't dissolve (easily). Can you think of a way to put that in a clear, simple way without using words like "complex" incorrectly and without taking #UnspecifiedDeity's name in vain? Happy holidays, Walkerma 04:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Chromium(III) chloride is kinetically inert because of the d3 configuration of the Cr3+ ion. I have done a quick cleanup of the relevant paragraph, and added the article to my watchlist (the comments on the assessment page are mine, so I really ought to do something about resolving them!). Quick trick question (no free beer this time): is iron(III) chloride soluble in water? Physchim62 11:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Highly so. This industrial chemical commodity is typically produced as 40% iron(III) chloride solution, but without much effort 45% solutions are possible at STP. A highly corrosive liquid then, btw, much more so than hydrochloric acid. In dilute form it looks like beer, but not so much froth :-). Wim van Dorst 11:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC).
Ah yes, but dilute solutions? Hydrated iron(III) oxide starts to precipitate at about pH 1.5, equivalent to a 20 mM solution of FeCl3. Hence laboratory solutions of iron(III) chloride are prepared in dilute hydrochloric acid, not pure water. The same is true for chromium(III) chloride and rhodium(III) chloride, although chromium(III) oxide is less insoluble than its iron equivalent (precipitation at around pH 4)—no data available for rhodium(III) oxide. I suspect the use of HCl in these latter cases is to ease the dissolution as well as to avoid the precipitation of hydrated oxides: chloride is kinetically a much better nucleophile than water.
Incidentally, [CrCl6]3− is a 15-electron complex, not 18-electron as Martin implies above. Electron counting does not give much information about properties for 1st-row Werner-type complexes.
Physchim62 10:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I was ambiguous, I meant that RhCl3 is 18e, I understand CrCl3 is less than that, even with six ligands counted up. Thanks for the cleanup work, and a nice question too! Walkerma 16:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Court cases[edit]

Thanks for your reply at WP:RD. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking 18:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Section doubling on WP:RD[edit]

Hi. I reverted a section-doubling on WP:RD but I'm not 100% sure that I preserved your other recent changes because I had trouble disentangling it all. You might want to double check that none of your comments have been lost. Cheers, Bovlb 17:40:25, 2005-07-16 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome and no need to apologize. The fault is mine for not checking what I was doing. I'm impressed at your list of languages, and as for translating, I doubt I'd be much use. I put Arabic as level 1 but it's more like level 0.5 - I took a year of Arabic with my friend a couple years ago and like Spanish or any other language you have to use it regularly or you start to lose it. :) I might check occasionally for Spanish pages though. Schrei 19:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Hi PC, I saw your addition to the ammonia page on complexes, and thought you should be aware of this page that popped up out of nowhere. As our expert on inorganics & naming, please can you please move it to a correct name? I assume that the current name is wrong. I could guess at a name, but I've never had the need to learn the arcane ways of naming complexes, so I'd rather you did it, if you have time. Enjoy sunny Spain, sounds more fun than sunny Waltham, Massachusetts where I am teaching at present. Cheers, Walkerma 02:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your message. I believe that in general the differences between U.S. and U.K. English are split pretty evenly between one and the other having changed. In most cases, I don't see any evaluative difference, either. It was just that in this cae the difference did seem to cloud a useful rule (well, I always found it useful when teaching English as a foreign language). With regard to 1776, though — I suspect, but I certainly don't know, that the change arrived much later (1828 and following, if I'm right about Webster). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Amino acid systematic names[edit]

I noticed that you have changed a few of the amino acid systematic names on the individual articles. I have reverted some of these back to names that I added earlier beacsue I got the names from this page which is an IUPAC publication. I would assume the names from that page are the correct and preffered names. Where were you getting your names from? Borb 19:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't have a single source, though I did try to check with the Online Blue Book and Sigma-Aldrich. The source you cite is wrong on at least four out of twenty: see Section R-5.5.1 for the use of sulfanyl instead of "thio" or "mercapto", and Table 28(a) for the preferred use of acetic acid and succinic acid with unlimited substitution (not "ethanoic acid" nor "butanedioic acid"). Footnote c in your source is also misleading: see Table 28(a) for the correct rules. Bloody IUPAC, they can't even follow their own prescriptions! Physchim62 20:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi PC, while we're on the subject of the perversities of IUPAC, I would like to plead with you to take a look over IUPAC nomenclature and at least take out the most glaring errors. For example is the "correct" name for acetamide really ethanamide? I went in a couple of months back and fixed carboxylic acids & ketones, because I'd researched these a little when moving pages named propanone and ethyl ethanoate. You seem like one of the few people who really knows the rules well enough to go in and edit the IUPAC page without thinking, "Am I sure about this?" I think even the organic textbook I've taught from this summer has some errors in it, so it's hard for most of us to feel confident about IUPAC names. This page is pretty important, because it's the one people cite when they do things like changing the name of acetone over to propanone, thereby causing all sorts of problems. If you will fix the IUPAC page itself with appropriate citations, I am willing to go in and fix things on the individual functional group pages. (What we really need as a species is a graphical language, so we could do away with names for structures altogether!)
Also, could you comment on the correctness (or not) of 1-propanol vs propan-1-ol? Are both acceptable to IUPAC? Is one preferred over the other? What about prop-1-yl acetate vs. 1-propyl acetate vs. n-propyl acetate? And isopropyls? I made 1-propanol (the usual US "systematic" name) the official home of CH3CH2CH2OH, then afterwards I had second thoughts. Can you clarify this for me? Thanks, Walkerma 22:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Aaargh! I've been worried about someone coming along and asking me to do that! After all, there are only 450 pages of rules to summarize... Still, if you think IUPAC is bad, you should try IUBMB nomenclature of enzymes... am currently battling through the biosynthesis of amino acids!
I shall take a look at the page and try to correct any errors, but we shall really only get to grips with it once we attack the functional groups pages, where the nomenclature of each group can be properly discussed. Even the name of the current page should be changed, to IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry.
To answer your specific queries, the preferred name of CH3CH2CH2OH is propan-1-ol (Section R-5.5.1. 1-Propanol is bad nomenclature. However, IUPAC is not internally consistent: the derived substituent name is propoxy (Table26(b)), which should come from propanol. And isopropoxy should come from isopropanol, not propan-2-ol. They mess things up even further with the butanols before retiring to do whatever IUPAC ex-commission members do. The name of the alkyl groups are simple in comparison: you will see from Table 19(b) that isopropyl is allowed on its own, but that substitutions on isopropyl are forbidden. Propyl is taken to mean n-propyl. Hope this clarifies things ;P Physchim62 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Infobox standardization support[edit]

You have voted for the suggestive title Infobox standardisation on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation even though your comment indicates that you are actually against standardization creep or at least do not support it unconditionally. VfD for these cases offers the option to vote move to NPOV title. Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation if you want the page to be moved, for instance to Wikipedia:Should we have instructions to standardize infoboxes?. --Fenice 08:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard table[edit]


Sorry you got a mystery heading- please delete!

I notice that you are uploading your own version of our data table- is it that you just don't like the current table? We had many kB of discussion before we settled on the template we did, so I'd like to encourage you to consider using the standard.

I studied the old table and its evolution and found a danger there, the cause for it becoming so long and unwieldy it was almost unused. Some wanted it to include every piece of thermodynamic data, others wanted it to include every piece of safety data, others (like me) want mainly physical properties, so it just grew and grew, and still major things were omitted. I have no interest in an EINECS number or a molar entropy figure, but I am interested in IR or NMR spectral information. The infobox was a compromise between being comprehensive yet meeting people's basic needs. There are many other things I would like to have had in the main table, but I could tell I was in a minority.

I notice that you DO add the EINECS # as a basic no., and a lot of other safety information, yet you omit the NFPA diamond. Should we be changing the main table template? I argue that Wikipedia is not a "trustworthy" place on which to depend on STEL values and the like, we should instead set up external links to commercial MSDS sheets which cannot be vandalised and which are legal documents. Also, the average user isn't going to be able to get as much info from these as from NFPA diamonds and simpler systems like that. I think it's fine to put these numbers on Wikipedia, but your table is getting quite long! Shouldn't some of these data go into the supplement?

In summary, I do like your table, but I think it's also helpful if we don't have a major contributor such as yourself putting out a non-standard table. I'd rather "bring you on board" (sorry, I've lived in the US too long!) and have you give your comments on the current infobox, and point out any serious shortcomings. I won't cry if you continue to go it alone- your table isn't so far from the standard, and it is a very nice version, but it might be nicer if we all used the same format. Thanks, Walkerma 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I wondered how long it was going to take for someone to notice that I wasn't quite using the standard table! You've brought up so many points that I'm going to have to address them in two seperate sections, general issues first ('cos it's easiest), then the safety issues where I do have problems with the standard format... Physchim62 01:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

General issues[edit]

Apart from safety matters, I seem to be guily of three infractions against the standard form:

  1. I list EINECS numbers;
  2. I add a Thermodynamic data section, including, at most, ΔfH, ΔcH and S;
  3. over the last couple of days, I have been adding full tables to stubs or short articles, so that the table is significantly longer than the article text.

The last is a departure from my normal practice, mostly because it does not take much longer to prepare a full length table than a short form (or at least it seems that way when I'm preparing them offline). I agree that it doesn't look wonderful, and indeed it's against the style guidelines. All the same, do you think that the table in ammonia (prepared to the PC format) is too long? I would say that "too long" is a relative term, and relative to the length of the article text.

I list EINECS numbers mostly because I come across them while I dig out the rest of the information, and I wouldn't like to have to go back and find them a second time! If I had to justify them, I would say

  1. they allow us to have a full set of EU regulatory information on the tables;
  2. they have a one-to-one correspondance chemical→number, unlike CAS numbers, and the same number is (usually) used for anhydrous forms and hydrates, both of which reduce error.

I agree that these are pretty feeble justifications!

As for thermodynamic data, I think there is a place for a small amount in the main table. Take the example of rhodium(III) chloride: do you really want me to start a whole new data page just to enter it's ΔfH? We are not going to have any more data on this compound (and many others) in the forseeable future, we cannot argue that the data page is a work in progress as we can for more widely used chemicals.

The form of table I am using at the moment has evolved over the weeks as I have been faced with the different problems posed by different compounds, and I think that is the way it should be. We can never have a "one size fits all", chemistry just isn't like that! Should we include the molecular mass in all tables? Yes! Then what do we do about yttrium barium copper oxide? We leave it out (at least in my current draft we do).

I hope you don't object to the modifications I made for the amino acids, adding "Abbreviations", "Isoelectric point" and "pKa" to {{chembox simple organic}}: these seem to me like sensible modifiations for a particular group of compounds, and have nothing to do with the rest of the chemicals we deal with.

On the other hand, I would be the first to agree that putting the full crystal data in bismuth trioxide was an experiment which didn't work. I would argue that all structural data should go on the data page, including that which is currently in the main table. The majority of readers are not interested in the fact that copper(II) sulfate is triclinic and not monoclinic after all: for those compounds where this is important, it can be integrated into the article text. I would suggest that specific rotation go on the data page as well: there is not the space in the main table to report it correctly.

Physchim62 02:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind a long table with short text in the short term, that tends to be a spur to add some real content (as with 1-propanol). I agree that often it's almost as easy to do the whole table at once (I write a lot offline too). As for the other points, I think it is worthwhile adding a supplement page, because that is the page where we give an external MSDS link. If we're doing that, and we should (even for RhCl3), we can include thermo data and EINECS/other safety data on there. I've been bad at putting supplement pages up, I think we all have been, but the idea was that pretty much every full table would have one- to address precisely the issues you mention. I agree that ΔfH and EINECS are borderline cases, there is a case for these being on the main page. But I think there should be a limit to the length of the table- just because the article is long doesn't justify making the table long IMHO. It should summarise what we think are the MAIN data, and less important data are just a click away. Cacycle has made the point, these should not become huge tables of data- he/she advocates the short form table for most pages. BTW, I noticed ages ago the different table, I just assumed these were done before we agreed on the standard.
I agree that we can't have "one size fits all", and I also really like the amino acids tables. I think I can accept your comment about monoclinic- though for things like CsCl the crystal structure is considered important. Should we just put it in the text? Possibly. I often take out the entire structure section, I only put it in if I think it's relevant. I have to disagree strongly with your comment on specific rotation, however. This is something which does not come in the tables of most simple compounds, it only appears with chiral natural products like camphor. In such cases, the number is an important piece of data, and in fact both Lancs and Aldrich list it for every chiral nonracemic catalogue entry. It's also just one line. One problem we have is that people leave it in, so we get a "?" for it with barium chloride and the like. Cheers, Walkerma 03:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Safety issues[edit]

It's hard to write good safety/hazards sections, that's why I like trying to do it! It's hard to write guidelines on how to write them, and the relevant section of the style guidelines needs to be ripped up and rewritten! Still, I shall attempt here to work my way through the problems and my solutions.

We agree that we should not be trying to write an MSDS for the chemical. This would be nonsense under EU law: the MSDS must be provided by the supplier, who engages their responsabilty by its preparation. And anyway, an MSDS is bloody boring to read!

The information I put in my Safety data sections is objective and verifiable. I use only official sources (no supplier's MSDS, how could I choose between conflicting data?) and I usually remember to quote the links in the "External links" section.

I have two main objections to the current chembox. Firstly, the MSDS link goes nowhere. We cannot put an external link in the table because of the MSIE bug (and remember what happened to the Hazardous Chemicals Database links), and when you follow through the link to the data page (when it exists), you simply find a section telling you to look elsewhere for the MSDS. On the other hand, I have no objection to MSDS links in the External links section of the article (no need to relegate it to the data page, unless there are lots of them).

More seriously, I feel that the "main worker hazards" entry is hopelessly subjective and places far to great a responsibility on the editor. We have renounced the idea of writing a full MSDS, and then we expect editors to summarize the hazards in a table box. All this when the [European Chemicals Bureau will give us Directive 67/548/EEC classifications for the majority of chemicals we are intersted in without us having to worry about the consequences of our judgements (and also gives us the official R- and S-phrases on the same page).

I included Permissible exposure limits to avoid be accused of European bias, although I boycott American TLVs as the relevant data are not easily verifiable. IDLH values are verifiable at the NIOSH site, and provide a ready answer to the question "how much will kill me?" Flash points, autoignition temperatures and explosive limits can probably go on a data page: flash points in particular are pretty useless to all except regulatory bodies and those who must follow their strictures. As for RTECS numbers, who uses them? I retained them from the standard template so as not to be accused of culpable individuality ;P

Physchim62 03:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

When we put together the safety section we had no one with a big interest in the topic commenting. I kept RTECS and the R/S phrases on the basis that they were in the earlier version of the table, and they are also in a lot of catalogues. I must admit, I didn't realise RTECS had been "privatised". The NFPA diamond was added later, after discussion on the WP talk page. The "main hazards" was in order to put in some words that people can understand (as opposed to IDLH (NIOSH): 100 mg/m3 which is meaningless unless you are used to looking at such nos.). I think "EU classification" would be a much superior version of this, to take out the subjectivity, we should change the template, as long as such data are readily available to us when writing pages. I must admit, though, I'm tempted to put in a few of your safety items into the template, but mark them as optional- what do you think? Looking at ammonia, I agree that for something major like that your few extra things don't seem out of place.
Regarding flash points, these were numbers we used regularly where I worked in industry (a fine chemicals plant), and many of these became so familiar I could probably have listed a dozen of them of the top of my head, and we sometimes switched solvents on the basis of this. Autoignition temp, LEL etc. are not in the standard template.
The way things are supposed to work is that you click on the External MSDS sheet or similar link in the table, and it takes you to such a listing on the supplementary page. The problem is that all of us are so bone idle we haven't bothered to do this- this is partly because we never formally approved a final version of the supplementary page. Just to give you an idea of what was intended, I've taken the trouble to add the links to Toluene_chemdata_supplement, which you can access from the toluene page. Please give me your opinion. The table on that page, by the way, is from a late-but-not-final draft of the data page.
As for your suggestion about renaming these pages as data page (as on ammonia, I think I agree, if you can back this up with examples. The data pages for elements don't relate to specific parent pages (except possibly chemical element), and they aren't supplementing data on another page, as far as I can tell. If this name is the Wikipedia standard then we should switch- but I was unaware of any equivalent system in use. Walkerma 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

NFPA triangles, specific rotations, etc[edit]

I should point out that I am not boycotting NFPA triangles as you seemed to believe. Simply, after the boric acid mishap, I took to commenting that line out if I had no information on which to make an entry (I get said info from the International Chemical Safety Cards). I have to admit that NFPA triangles mean about as much to me as EINECS numbers do to you, but if they're used in the US it is right that we should include them. Now that the {{chembox}} is fixed, there should be no more problem.

I see how things ought to work on toluene chemdata supplement, although I am still unconvinced that these links couldn't go in the "External links" section (which is what the "See also" section on toluene should be labelled).

Specific rotation data are not as easy to come by as you imply: Aldrich does not even list data for all the L-amino acids, let alone other chiral compounds. Still, its a fairly minor isuue to be worrying about: just remember that solvant, concentration and temperature should be quoted.

I agree that flash points are widely used in industry—I have even measured a few myself! But then I could counter that ΔH values are widely used in universities...

As for crystal structures, of course we should mention the structure of caesium chloride in the article. In the case of type structures, they are too important to be summarized in the table. BTW, I feel that we are still a bit weak on type structures (the inorganic chemists talking!), I will bring this up when we are ready for "Phase II" (ie, not yet!).

Cheers, Physchim62 23:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Towards a proposal[edit]

I have reworked the tables on Lead(II) chloride and Ammonia. Structural and regulatory information has been moved to the data page, but I have retained an "EU style" hazards section. What do you think? Physchim62 23:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond directly to this as I got busy, but I trust you took my silence for what it was- I think we've reached a good compromise. We should incorporate your suggestions into the official Chembox. Could you outline the changes on Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox when you get home and settled in again? Walkerma 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Will do, probably next weekend if I get the chance. I am also working with Eequor on some templates for R- and S-phrases which will clarify things for readers, so I shall try and bring it all in together. We need to have a wider discussion on the supplementary data page as well, even if it is only to decide that we can't be bothered to change the current template (you have seen {{chembox supplement}}, haven't you?). Cheers for now, Physchim62 08:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


I would very much appreciate a translation of the voting instructions from English to French for Wikiversity.

Please see meta:Wikiversity/Vote for more details. I also added two other small bits to translate that will be used as an announcement that voting has started. I would also appreciate a translation of those notices as well. Thank you for going out of your way to find my talk page on Wikibooks. --Robert Horning 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting result?[edit]

I read this interesting tidbit about DNA here. Have you heard of this before? I wonder if there is really something to it? --HappyCamper 00:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure what to make of this one. The author has edited many quantum chemistry articles and seems to know what (s)he's talking about. The problem is that DNA is not particularly stable to UV light, so this is a non-phenomenon he/she is explaining. Now if he were to discuss electron transport in photosystems, that would be interesting... Physchim62 01:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

making new stubs[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Stub and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting for information on how to properly add new stub types.

I'm placing your polymer stub for discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, please answer there. --Joy [shallot] 22:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I'm on crack. I completely missed it! Sorry.

Anyway, I'm still concerned about the target audience issue. Your proposal had no projection of how many stubs will end up in the category. It's good to see thirty articles in there right now, but how many more are there? --Joy [shallot] 09:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


Physchim62 - a snowflake of appreciation for you!

A snowflake of appreciation for you, Physchim62, for making the new polymer stub! --HappyCamper 00:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Hey there. I see you making good catches on copyright problems quite often. Can I just ask you to use the new template:


when doing so? It provides all the links that the clearing admin needs, and makes the closure process less painful. Thanks! -Splashtalk 21:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Google tutorial?[edit]

Glad to be of help, although I don't know what made my post qualify as a "quick google tutorial". Puzzled, Lupo 19:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (P.S.: Thanks for adding the info to our article!)


Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

thanks, and[edit]

I updated the images on the olefin metathesis page.

Farsi vandal[edit]

I'm not sure what to do here. Is this vandalism or ignorance. I've blocked both for 1 hour for disruption - we'll see if that gets their attention --Doc (?) 11:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reporting copyvios[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for reporting some difficult to find copyvios. Can I just remind you to blank the page when you add {{copyvio}}? It stops the mirrors picking the material up. Thanks. -Splashtalk 19:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

References in acetic acid[edit]

Hi PC,

You seem to understand fancier ways of doing references (I don't!), and I notice that what appears on the acetic acid page as Ref 1 should actually be Ref 3, Ref 2 should be 4, etc. Can you fix this? Thanks, Walkerma 17:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Martin, this is simply changing the order in the reference section. The actual citation number is taken for the sequence of that list. Nothing fancy here, imho. Wim van Dorst 23:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC).
  • PS. All thanks for adding text to the article. It still does need some support in the chemistry section, I'd think. Something you both (PC and Martin) are very good at... Wim van Dorst 23:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC).

Thanks, Wim. I saw the comment about it needing to be longer- that's fine, my problem is usually knowing when to shut up! I'll try to add a bit this coming weekend. No pix yet, it's been overcast for days. I think PC knows a lot about Rh and Ir/Ru catalysis too, so I'm sure he can expand the manufacturing section (if not, I will be using a good student term paper from last year on acetic acid manufacture to guide me!). Cheers, Walkerma 15:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm thinking about this one: it is true that I knew how to make acetic acid four times faster than anyone else ten years ago (EP632006), but that is more a point for Monsanto process. As I have changed career direction several times since then, I don't have up to date solid refs on usage figures etc. There is also the problem of downstream articles (improving acetic acid involves improving terephthalic acid, and cellulose acetate, for example). Otherwise, it is an important, but unexceptional, petrochemical. I will try to make some time for this at the weekend, as I'm in the university library tomorrow. Physchim62 16:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Yoneda paper is a great review. I also have a paper on the Showa Denko KK process from ethylene (Sano et al. Catalysis Surveys from Japan 3 (1999) 55-60) as well as one by Derrick Watson of BP on the CATIVA process (from ACS Preprints 199, 44, 58-60). I can email scans to you if you would like. But please don't say it's unexceptional- we need to get people excited about it when they read the article! Walkerma 16:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I already re-organized the acetic acid#Production section in following the structure of: 4.1 longest run method (fermentation), 4.2 Most important industrial process (Monsanto->Cativa), and 4.3 Alternatives. These sections imho are fairly well fleshed out, but add-ons remain welcome
  • I also re-organized acetic acid#Applications following the same structure from most important to least important. Although imho correct, these are rather succinct (and I have to add the Ester production data still; mislaid the particular page of the report I'm working from). Textual/chemical add-on welcome here
  • Before these two sections, there is 2. Chem/Phys Properties and 3. Biochemistry. Talking of sections that are in dire need of a good PC/Walkerma hand!
    • I'm working on these, and on the introductory paragraphs - check back Saturday! Physchim62 06:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And let it be said: the add-on of the final paragraph to the history section makes it very good. Compliments, Martin. Now if only I could find on the said pages any reference at all (hint, suggestion, or even slight remark) about acetic acid use (or any alternative), then I could really believe it ;-)
  • ps. Shouldn't we write all this on the peer-review page? Wim van Dorst 19:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC).
The references are now fixed, and I have sexed up the biochemistry a little bit (and found a reference for it). I will see what else I can do on it at the weekend, although I am hampered by lack of access to Kirk-Orthmer before October 28. Martin, if you mail me the paper on the Showa Denko process I shall try to include that (it probably doesn't merit an article of its own). Physchim62 17:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

Was that you who closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celes Chère page? I reverted just in case it was a random anon, but I wanted to let you know. BrianSmithson 17:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, that was me: for some reason, the software kept logging me off last night, I tried to catch all the missigned edits but obviously I missed one or two! Physchim62 03:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


What are these templates intended for? :-) --HappyCamper 05:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful, beautiful...that's all I have to say! --HappyCamper 23:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree Very intriguing: how do they work? And ps: should we add a small paragraph to Wikipedia:Chemical infobox with recommended use (as about the NFPA templates)? Wim van Dorst 23:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC).

Re: Yves Chauvin[edit]

Somebody erased the sentence that said Chauvin wouldn't pick the Nobel Prize. I haven't read anywhere that he changed his mind or anything for that purpose. Thus the sentence has to stay in the article until someone quotes a source proving otherwise. Apologies if I weren't clear enough. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


The article you just created, shouldn't it be on Template namespace? Also, since it redirects to your userpage, even better would be to have it as a userpage. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, that should have been in the template namespace. My mistake. I blanked it straight away and left a delete tag! Physchim62 08:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Elisabeth Jordan[edit]

Thank you for transating the Elisabeth Jordan article so quickly. It had already dropped off the end of AFD, but no one had asked for translation. Thanks to your speedy work, I've been able to close its AFD discussion. Do you think that the article should be moved to Elisabeth Jordán. If you want, you could do that yourself. Again: thanks! --Gareth Hughes 15:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


What do the S# templates you are making mean?? 21:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Phosphoric acids and Phosphates[edit]

I have recently completed a key illustration for, and I have put into regular article status, an article Phosphoric acids and Phosphates. I was planning to write a Chemistry section at the start of the (Ortho)Phosphoric acid article analogous to the Chemistry section I wrote for Hydrochloric acid, although I wanted to finish the illustration for and put online the Phosphoric acids and Phosphates article first, which I've finally done. What plans to you have for Phosphoric acid now - so there is not a duplication of effort? H Padleckas 07:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Improvong Phosphoric acid seems quite beyond me at the moment: it's hard to know where to start! It is on my list of safety sections to do, but that's about it. Feel free to do whatever you like (short of speedying it, obviously :) Physchim62 21:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Raney nickel[edit]

Following the comments of User:Bodnotbod in peer review I got encouraged to nominate this article for FA. I wanted to get a second opinion before I go out there and embarass myself. Thanks for your help! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 11:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I think this would be a great FA but there is no need to rush it. I notice from your user page that you are "away" until mid-December—I think you should wait until you have a bit of clear WikiTime before submitting to WP:FAC. At the very least, wait until it has finished its month on peer review to see if we can improve it some more in a quieter environment. Keep me posted, and good luck! Physchim62 17:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I was planning to nominate it after I came back from my break. By then I'll have some pictures of it and maybe a couple more sources with crystallographic data.
By the way, great work sorting out the references in the article!
Thanks for everything. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 09:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

translating French copyright law[edit]

I saw that you've volunteered to the request to translate the article on : let me know if you want some help with that one, I would be pleased to . . . otherwise, I will work on revising the aviation law entry which dearly needs help, too.--Mike 04:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Feel free to take a look at my effort at French copyright law and improve it in anyway possible! I don't do much legal work on Wikipedia, and I know precious little about aviation law! My current legal project is the French case LICRA c. Yahoo and its US implications (the First Amendment arguments are still going on). Thatnks for the offer, all the best, Physchim62 09:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Structure in acetic acid box[edit]

Hi PC,

We seem to have reached an impasse on Wikipedia:Peer review/Acetic acid/archive1 regarding the type of structure to use. I explained that I hate the line-angle formula because most people have no clue what it means, but Wim prefers the "clean fresh look". Eequor suggested doing it like benzene, which I like too, I just don't have the software to do it. Can you help us resolve this before we send it to FAC? I think it's important because:

  • It is right at the top of the box which will (if it's FA of the day) be accessed by possibly millions- esp. if they decide to put that drawing on the main page.
  • It may help to decide policy on countless other simple organics such as acetone, ethyl acetate, etc.

BTW, I'm not opposed to line-angle formulae per se, I think they are fine for more complex molecules such as menthol, which uses MY line-angle formula. Acetic acid is simple enough to write out in full. Can you arbitrate here? Also BTW, thanks for all your hard work lately, I'm afraid I've been swamped at work. Walkerma 15:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • (Martin, you didn't think I wouldn't see this?) To be sure, for a good chemical page, I still prefer the clear line-angle structure. But to keep good friends with others (and because I think we should push for FAC), I simply put up the three structures into one picture (see acetic acid now). For the eventual FA Of The Day article, I'ld like to propose (it's possible in the process) the closeup of glacial acetic acid: much more appealing. Wim van Dorst 17:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

Frankly, my colleagues, I don't particularly like any of the current pics at the top of the chembox. I agree with Martin that the line angle formula is unnecessarily oversimplified; and why does it show the O–H bond? We have had many problems in the past with line angle formulas, I would propose that they not be used for compounds with three or fewer carbon atoms. As for acetic acid, I would merge the two pics from the German article into one and use that. Physchim62 19:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I should add that I completely agree with Wim about the front page picture. Physchim62 19:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Good luck with RfA![edit]

I'm supporting you in your quest for adminship. I'd never seen you around before, but as soon as I saw your answers to the questions, I knew you were admin material. Plus, there's nobody opposed to your nomination. (As of 19:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC), at least. Hope I didn't jinx it.) - Kookykman (talkcontribs)


I liked your old signature! -- 15:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

New Polymers Logo proposed[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polymers. By the way, I supported your nomination as admin. Looks like everyone is supporting it. H Padleckas 14:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop![edit]

Hi, Physchim62/Archive 2005, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop
Original Barnstar.png

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new mop! Sango123 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations from this WP:Chem colleague! Wim van Dorst 16:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

Congrats, you do deserve sysop rights. Regards, --Sn0wflake 17:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Congrats! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your adminship! To make it easier to deal with vandals, here's your flamethrower +25 for use with your new mop. Titoxd(?!?) 18:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations from one of the coldest Wikipedians. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done! Now, I have this set of 97 sockpuppets that have been harassing me.... Walkerma 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What else there can be said...ah yes: Glückwünsche, félicitations etc....I like multi-lingual admins :)))) Lectonar 06:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats. I wish you all the best in your new role. --Bhadani 12:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Félicitations Dlyons493 Talk 00:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations in your appointment as sysop. Are you now able to unblock innocent users who want to edit Wikipedia? H Padleckas 17:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In principle, yes. Physchim62 03:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


It's not supposed to be protected without a notice. You can carry out your first admin task by unprotecting it and leaving a message on the Talk:AN page. (I personally rarely visit that page, as I find the loading times too long). =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Van der Waals[edit]

Congrats on your RfA! Well deserved.

I wanted to ask you, do you happen to know what partition function for the grand canonical ensemble of a Van der Waals gas is? --HappyCamper 00:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In short, no. Don't forget that the van der Waals equation does not specify the form of the potential field for the gas particles, merely its effect on the ensemble, so I don't see how you could could determine the partition between the states. Even if you were to take a case where the only interatomic forces were London dispersion forces, you would still be faced with an n-body problem, with all that that entails. Monte Carlo methods would probably be the way around this, unless someone has come up with a new-fangled computational method which I don't know about (quite possible!). Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

tagging stamp images[edit]

Hi, you tagged Image:Lilabner20985.jpg as "nosource", but stamp images always have as source the postal service of the country whose name is printed on the stamp. (There is a separate discussion about whether to delete copyrighted stamp images used for non-philatelic purposes, but I think those should be done gradually as replacement images come in.) Stan 14:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The source of the image is not necessarily the postal service, although I admit that in practice it usually will be. A user is quite capable of scanning an image of the stamp, in which case the image is self-made but the copyright still belongs to whoever. The copyright holder (in this case the U.S. Postal Service) must be mentioned on the image description file of a fair use image: We know who it is (in this case), but we cannot assume that our users do. Physchim62 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • All the postal administrations I know about have the artists/designers sign over their copyrights. The stamp-related image tags will have the right verbiage, you can just automatically use those. Stan 06:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


I forgot that obsolete wasn't a CSD for images. I appreciate you pointing that out to me though and hope I didn't create too much work for you.--MONGO 15:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Phthalic acid pic(s)[edit]

Should I split the phthalic acid isomers pic apart into 3 separate pics and upload them for you? I plan to leave the names off at the bottom of these. That way, foreign language Wikipedias can use them. H Padleckas 21:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be great if you could! Thanks. Physchim62 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Finished, uploaded into WikiCommons, and inserted into the Tables of Properties for all 3 articles. H Padleckas 01:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"In the news"[edit]

Hi PC,

I notice that our news section on the Chem Portal is getting a little out of date, can you think of some new things to put on there? Or do you want me to start scouring through C&E News? Cheers, Walkerma 17:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can think of something to put there, by all means feel free to update it: I am not in a position to keep it up to date on my own. In fact, I only activated it for the Nobel Prize: it can alzays be commented out until the next notable story comes along.
Actually, now I come to think about it, the REACH directive has just passed the European Parliament, we can stick that on (more EU biais I know, but Wikipedia takes the editors it can find!) Physchim62 (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Diborane page[edit]

Well done, adding all that data. The related compounds at the bottom is however a bit odd. What is 'alumanate'? Not a cation. Dialane is fleetingly known. Digallane was properly synthesised by Tony Downs at Oxford. I suggest mention of anions here, not cations. I.e diborohydride ion. I leave it to you however. Bduke 21:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Alumane is the IUPAC preferred name for AlH3: apparently alane is no longer preferred because the corresponding group (AlH2–) would be alanyl, which is already taken for the residue of the amino acid alanine. There is plenty left to be written on group 13 hydrides, but I wanted to clean up diborane (and thirty-odd other "organic-type" articles) a bit this weekend. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Pentane (isomers and pics)[edit]

I see you've been working on Pentane a couple of days ago. I added the 3-isomer chem. structure pic at the bottom there now. I use America OnLine (AOL) to access the internet and Wikipedia. Usually when a Wikipedia page appears using AOL, the article part of the page is about 540-550 pixels wide. Some people who use other internet access providers may see a wider page, but AOL is used quite commonly, so many Wikipedia users will see the Wikipedia pages the way I do.

The problem with that is that the 3-isomer pentane pic is too wide to fit along-side the Table of Properties; therefore, I placed it way down, below the Table. Since then, I have thought of a solution to this problem. I have made a very similar pic with n-pentane on the top and iso- and neo-pentanes side-by-side below the n-pentane, so this new pic is less wide. Now is my chance to relabel the common names, before I re-upload the new pic. Previously, I had "iso-pentane" and "neo-pentane". Should I fuse the prefixes with "pentane" into one solid word like "isopentane" and "neopentane", before I upload the new pic? I think those would be the correct common names, but I want to check with you. H Padleckas 02:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the IUPAC preferred names are isopentane and neopentane: one of the reasons I created these articles was to point this out!
The screen width question is more difficult: articles appear to me at about 800px wide on most computers, slightly wider still on my laptop, so the pentane isomer image fits just fine next to the chembox. You must have real difficulty with articles such as dioxane... It's probably best to bring this up on the Project talk page, as it affects all of us in editing articles. All the best, Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I inserted the modified Image:Pentane isomers.PNG pic in all three pentane isomer articles. I also made separate Image:Isopentane.PNG and Image:Neopentane.PNG pics in a style similar to the old Image:Pentane.png pic. These pics can now be seen in the Tables of Properties in the individual corresponding Pentane, Isopentane, and Neopentane articles. Is it worthwhile writing three separate articles covering these three isomers individually; that is, is there that much to say about each one that does not apply to the others? I was wondering why not a combined article with a triple Table of Properties. When we get into the hexanes, heptanes, etc., there will be more and more isomers of little, if any, individual noteworthiness. H Padleckas 21:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again for the pictures, my image processing capabilities are pretty limited. I agree with your comments regarding the alkanes: I have scrapped my plans to do seperate articles for the neurotoxic n-hexane and the isomer mix used as a solvent, on the grounds that there was too much similarity. On the other hand, we need to watch out for articles which duplicate our current "group" articles: there are already pages on o-xylene, p-xylene, p-toluidine for example... As with any pseudo-closed system, the entropy has a tendancy to rise unless work is done on the system (or unless the system is allowed to release heat)! Physchim62 (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Sorry if stepped in and edited this article while you were still in the middle of making changes to it.  :) Edgar181 12:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem, that happens from time to time! I am trying to clear out Category:Organic compounds into subcategories, with a bit of article cleanup at the same time. Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Chemical element symbol templates[edit]

I see, that's why those pages were getting that category. Makes sense now. I'm working on it. --Kenyon 18:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Physchim, it seems that because of your and Kenyon's edits, all of the chemical element name templates now have the comment "This template is not suitable for Wikipedia:Subst". The Subst page, however, lists the chemical templates as things that should always be substituted, and for good reason. Why did you mark these templates as not suitable? If there is a good reason, you should probably comment in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template substitution. If these templates cannot be subst'ed, they probably should not be used.--Srleffler 20:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity fate decided (sort of)[edit]

I believe that I have found the information requested, see which was added not too long ago. I have also posted the result into the proposal talk page in order for some discussion to take place. Have a look when you have time. By the way congrats on becoming an admin. --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 17:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pourbaix diagrams[edit]

Did you see my post on the reference desk? I think that's what those are called... --HappyCamper 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems that we even have an article on them! Physchim62 (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

NFPA triangles[edit]

Thanks for your post on my talk page. I planned on contacting you to discuss the issue - looks like you were ahead of me.

I was looking for an online source of these and started using the one in the NFPA 704 external links section (Listing of NFPA Ratings for many chemicals). When I noticed after some cross-checking that there were variances in the assignments (with acetone), I decided to stop until I got some advice.

My current thinking is to come up with a short, accurate description of the NFPA 704 assignment process for a chemical or a substance and add it to the NFPA 704 article. This will address the issue of how assignments may vary slightly, depending on who is assigning them. I think that manufacturers are allowed to make the assignments, but I'll have to check on this.

Would there be any interest in adding a source/comment field to the NFPA template so that the source could be documented and/or caveats added? I can see arguments on both sides of the issue. Knowing where an assignment came from, or the ability to address the reasons for variations would be a nice addition, but would detract from the clean nature of the triangle. Perhaps a standard practice, rather than an addition to the template, would be more useful in dealing with such situations. I didn't want to go unilateral with such things since I think with proper discussion, we can figure out the best way to handle such situations. Catbar (Brian Rock) 12:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Our forum[edit]

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

--Anittas 19:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi PC,

As the admin I know best, I wanted to mention a few new chemistry folks who have been around for several weeks without an official welcome. I would consider doing this myself, but I think it's probably better coming from an admin. I know this welcome is a key thing for new people; when I was new and had questions I went to that person for help at first. I often post a followup "Welcome from the WikiChemists" afterwards, as I did tonight with User talk:Mothball. So, can you or someone else suitable arrange a welcome message for User:Oneofmanysteves, User:Antrax, User:Kilo-Lima (who has been around a while), and User:SiegeSapper (who has not edited any articles as yet)? Can you help? Thanks, Walkerma 05:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

'Tis done! Physchim62 (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Visiting the lab soon...[edit]

Just wanted to drop by a note letting you know that I'll be back to my Uni later this month, and that I'll be able to access both organic and inorganic labs. If you have any requests for pictures of chemicals you may not have available in your lab, this would be a good time to let me know. Please drop me a note in my talk page with your request(s). Regards. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 01:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Raney nickel is high on the list! Take care and thanks for the requests. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbon monoxide poisoning[edit]

I noticed that you put an accuracy tag on the Carbon monoxide poisoning. If you get a chance, could you leave a message on the talk page for the article outlining your concerns? Thanks! --Arcadian 16:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You for the warm welcome[edit]

The information you provided is very useful and I look forward to contributing to wikipedia. Thank you very much! --Oneofmanysteves 25 September 2014

New user guidance[edit]

Hi - A new user, User talk:Reveldrummond, has recently added the article Magnesium in biological systems. I gave him/her a welcome and have been helping with it a bit. I would appreciate it if you would take a look and add your chemistry expertice. The article has a large ref section and the user plans to expand it. Please take a looksee and give some advice/guidance. Thanks, Vsmith 01:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it's coming along nicely! I will take a closer look thius weekend. Physchim62 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Strontium chloride[edit]

Hi PC,

I was doing a few interwiki links to de, and noticed that German SrCl2 has some interesting stuff that would spice up our page. I wrote that it has no major uses, but in Germany it looks like it does. I know you're busy, but could you translate it? It is just a paragraph. Cheers, Walkerma 03:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! They certainly did well to find all those uses! Physchim62 (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

List of chemical reactions[edit]

Hi PC: I did some edits on the proposed proposed worklist of reactions, including removing one of your choices and replacing another. I removed the FR substitution reaction because we don't even have an article on this, and the Nucleophilic addition-elimination (red link) got replaced by nucleophilic addition. I also eliminated one of my red linked suggestions, dehydration (chemistry). This left room to add in some others such as oxidative addition. I figured that if it doesn't have an article yet, it probably isn't one of the core of main reaction types or it is covered on a similar-named page. Can you take a look, and edit as you see fit (including putting back any you think must be there)? I wanted to check that you were OK with it before we settle on the list, amend the total accordingly. Thanks for the SrCl2 work, btw. Walkerma 08:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the name change on nucleophilic addition, I simply wasn´t sure what people called it these days! I shall replace FR substitution, not because of its immense importance in day-to-day chemistry but because it is a reaction which students come accross fairly early in their studies of organic chemistry. I am not particularly asking for oxidative addition to be included for similar reasons—it might be important but it is a fairly specialized topic. I have a few additions to make to the physical chemistry section as well, again on the basis of what is studied in the first couple of years of a European university course (not being comprehensive here, just using this as an external guideline). Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Nucleophilic addition is different from what you had in mind, I think, but then again I wasn't expecting our goals to cover everything. We do also have Nucleophilic acyl substitution which is IMHO the most important example of the addition-elimination type. As for free radical substitution, the article we have on this general class is in fact more specific free radical halogenation, as this is the only FR substitution reaction undergrads in the US usually learn. Do you think we should write a new (more general) FR substitution article, or just go with the FR halogenation one already written (probably a "Start" at present). I'm a Bristol graduate, so we were taught that oxidative addition was as important as SN2, but they tended to regard organometallic chem as more important than organic, I think! Seriously, I thought of putting it in so that we include at least one organometallic mechanism, and the article does include reductive elimination. Walkerma 18:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, you might have been taught that oxidative addition was as important as SN2, but are you able to give a definition? (trick question, there are as many definitions as there are workers in the field) If we include oxidative addition, why not β-elimination: IMHO more important fundamentally and certainly more important industrially. I shall let you put on your robe of Soloman on this one.
Equally, I have added a dozen or so articles to the physical chemistry section, some of which could be removed but I shall let the consensus decide which ones! Physchim62 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome![edit]

It's good to have people like you around! Do you know if wikipedia is implementing a Tutor Guidance Project or something, as to guide the newcomers in a more direct way? Because perhaps it would be a good way to accelerate the insertion of people that want to participate and don’t know how!, and at the same time it could generate more community spirit between the wikipedians!

In this case I am trying to merge, or get someone to merge, the pages for chemistry resources, [] and [], but I don't know how to to start it. and I can't even get the template to point the correct links, could you help me? or indicate me where to get some help? thanks! *Antrax 13:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no formal tutorship on Wikipedia, as it conflicts with our general philosophy of spreading the necessary work as widely as possible: in general, all users are expected to act as tutors as far as they can. Wikipedia:Help desk is a good place to post specific queries (even for "experienced" users, although most questions are posted by newcomers); Wikipedia:Tutorial is what I used to get me started; Wikipedia:Welcome will put you in touch with users who have particular experience in welcoming newcomers, and links to other tutorials which have been created; and the Wikipedia:Bootcamp aims to be a crash course in contributing. All that having been said, the best way to learn is by contributing yourself: be bold, and don't be afraid of making mistakes. Most mistakes are easily corrected, and you will never learn by being afraid!
As for the merge, I completely agree that Chemistry resources should not be where it is. If you read WP:NOT, you will see that Wikipedia is NOT a respository of external links: we are not trying to be Yahoo! here. However, these collections of links are tolerated on pages beginning with Wikipedia: such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Data, where they are kept for the benefit of editors trying to improve articles. So Chemistry resources should be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Data.
Before you do this, I should leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry to let other people know what you are planning to do. It's not obligatory, and I don't think there will be much objection, but leaving a note like that keeps you covered if another editor disagrees with you: the other editor cannot accuse you of just following your own whims because you have specifically asked for feedback.
Then you should copy (not cut) the contents of Chemistry resources and add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Data, then save the page with the edit summary "merge from [[Chemistry resources]]". Then immediately re-edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Data so that it looks OK.
Finally, you will need to nominate Chemistry resources for deletion: as the page is a fairly blatent breach of policy, there should be few problems here, but be sure to have read WP:AFD thoroughly before you take this step, as the process is a little bit bureaucratic.
As for getting the links to point in the right place, I suggest you take a look at the wikicode of this response (just click on the "edit" tag) to see how I have done it: that's quicker and simpler than explaining it!
All the best, and happy editing, Physchim62 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)