User talk:Rifleman 82

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


Contents

Tantalum(V) ethoxide[edit]

Is there a way we can expand the article beyond the 1,500 characters? it was ripped off of some contents and now it stays at 1,091 I guess. If this cannot be done, then the plausible way will be to close the DYK nom. I ask you because I am not the chemistry type and can't do it myself. — ΛΧΣ21 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added some description of the dimeric structure, the article is now over 1500 characters. EdChem (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Rifleman 82, do you think you could stop by the DYK template now that Ed's done his most welcome additions, and let us know whether the article works now? We can rule on things like length, but we can't tell whether it hangs together or if it might run afoul of some of the issues you mentioned. There is one issue that definitely needs to be addressed: the hook mentions "optical and semiconductor applications", but while "optical" is in the article and sourced, the word "semiconductor" never appears. We can either delete "semiconductor" from the hook, or add it with an inline source citation to the article. If you think retaining "semiconductor" is best (it does make for a more interesting hook) and can be referenced, then can I ask you to add it and its inline source citation? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look maybe later today or tomorrow morning. EdChem should be able to help too. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks like EdChem made a bunch of edits the next day, but the semiconductor issue remains. I thought I'd check in again, though I'm guessing that this now needs to wait until after the holidays, which I hope are happy ones for you and yours. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't managed to get everything done yet. In those edits I re-added the reference that was originally used for the superconductor comment, but have not had the chance to check what the paper says on that topic. Once I've added what I can find (and I've been surprised, there is more written about the compound that I had realised), I plan to look at some redrafting to make the article more concise and improve the flow - but it takes more effort than I am really able to give reliably. By way of explanation, holiday pressures and on-going health issues for me and my family are limiting my time and concentration. I could provide ALT hook(s) that are referenced if it would help, or try to get the superconductor and lede issues addressed within a couple of days. Again, I apologise, I realise the timing is way beyond what was considered reasonable back when I was active in DYK. EdChem (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ed, it's the holidays. Please, don't stress about this now. I'm sorry to hear about the health issues. We have a bit more flex in DYK these days—I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing, but there are significantly older articles than this one—so another several days would not be out of line, though it would be nice if we could wrap this by the end of the year. An interesting ALT hook that is fully referenced would indeed help, since we can recruit a reviewer with such a hook. Whenever you're ready is fine, and thank you so much for taking it on. Out of curiosity, Rifleman, do you think you'd be able to do the review once Ed's provided a new ALT hook? If so, I won't start trying to recruit another reviewer (who probably wouldn't know anything about the subject). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If we're not in such a hurry, I'll be happy to help. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Poking my head in. An ALT hook or the superconductor material to support the current hook would be nice sometime soon if at all possible, with a review to follow. Thanks, everyone. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There's probably more that could be said about the compound, but it is now DYK ready, I think, with the semiconductor mention referenced so I have skipped the ALT hook. Apologies that this got lost in my tasks. EdChem (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
EdChem, you got back to it much more quickly than I was hoping for; thank you very much. Rifleman 82, if you could do that review in the next few days, that would be wonderful. Many thanks in advance (and a few more in reserve when the day arrives). :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Rifleman, you said you'd "support" ALT4. What we need is someone willing to sign off on it: approve it with the appropriate icon. Since Graeme proposed it, he can't approve it; we need someone independent. If that's you—if you think the hook is accurate and something you believe should be approved—please stop by. If not, please let me know here so I can resume the search for a reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow the process seems really complicated. I gave it the tick. Let me know if it's not enough. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a bit. Thank you very much. I've just moved your addition so it's in chronological order and at the bottom so no one thinks the "re-review" red arrow was added afterwards: with the tick last, they'll know it has been approved. I think we're finally done! Many thanks also to EdChem, for getting the article to the point that it could be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nickel sulfide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

ΛΧΣ21 05:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Acetonedicarboxylic acid[edit]

You have change the expression „decarboxylation“ and added „oxidation“. What’s the oxydation agent? It’s not the sulfuric acid, because there is no sulfur dioxid. If you look at the formula of the german patent, carbon monoxide is evolved. If you look at literature Org Synth, there is a warning „The reaction must be carried out in a good hood, since a large amount of carbon monoxide is liberated.“. best regards from organic chemist --Drdoht (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

Structure problem[edit]

Comment on File talk:Oxidation of furfural to furanone.png (image now on commons) for you... DMacks (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on WP:TAFIHA[edit]

Hello,

Regarding your comment at the Holding Area of the TAFI, I would like to clarify that the "To Do list" refers to the possible improvements for the given article. As the list currently stands, one of the editors has endorsed widening the scope of the article to include other kinds of salts etc...

Hope this clears whatever doubts you had. If not, feel free to contact me again on my Talk page.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

Reverted your edit on Sodium cyclopentadienide[edit]

I just reverted your revert on sodium cyclopentadienide. I just uploaded my file to the commons. The views of the crystal structures would be a great way to show it.

Chembox edits[edit]

I couldn't help noticing your note to Edgar re changes made to chemboxes by people who shouldn't tinker with things they don't understand, or who are simply malicious. However, there is a very simple solution that, unfortunately, is going to be hard to implement: insist on literature (not some chemical company's datasheet) references for every datum. I confess that I've been lazy about this myself, and can correct it, but I'm not your problem. The only reason I'm writing at all is because I share your concern about the public's general lack of faith in the veracity of WP data.Xprofj (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For various reasons, fiddling with the Chembox is popular among new editors. Some of them assume that the absence of (high quality?) data is a deficiency that needs to be corrected. We've had attempts at curation. Indeed, the digital identifiers and structures have been checked. ChemSpiderMan (talk · contribs) and Beetstra (talk · contribs) have been working hard in that regard. MSDS-style data tends to be poorly referenced, and people love to quibble over details. If I had my way, I'd make the MSDS-style section go away because it is so subjective. That's not going to happen, because of many years' precedent.

Thanks again for interest, and for your comment. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Dy1111[edit]

Here is my note to Dy1111, but he deleted it as vandalism, which indicates that this editor just does not want to discuss the problem or does not think there is one.

The editor has the energy and the will to contribute but seems to have only a limited feel for chemistry. Dy11111 mostly contributes tangential or trivial information, some of which is misleading. He created 1-Fluorohexane. It is a real compound, but so what? Now look at the article. Is this the standard Dy11111 seeks? Most of us understand WP:NOTABILITY differently. It would have been nice for a new editor to ask before creating. In addition to adding trivia to Wikipedia, this editor can be annoying. He repeatedly reverted work of more experienced editors, seemingly out of spite. The history so far indicates that Dy11111 has a complicated attitude and a limited ability to contribute usefully. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

--Smokefoot (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

Block evasion: IP of blocked user, User:Dy11111 ?[edit]

Hi Rifleman 82. From the user's edit history, I suspect that User:1YlGC6dsynvm might be your "old friend" User:Dy11111. Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it for now. If you're inclined, you can ask for a checkuser. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

Inappropriate use of rollback feature[edit]

You practice of using WP:rollback in non-evident circumstances, especially without providing any explanations, especially against edits with meaningful edit summaries, is inappropriate. It would have the denial of aforementioned tool as its consequence unless you ceased it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I shouldn't have used rollback. I thought I made a null edit with an edit summary, but apparently that didn't go through. I don't understand the second half of your statement, though.

I disagree with your edit because the new picture does not show the delta-lambda relationship that the old image did. I think it'd be much better if you used such an image to replace the existing one. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

Block a user: user name policy violation[edit]

Please see Sulfuric acid's revision history and report the user who changed "Template:Chembox" to "Template:Chemboxlol". 112.90.197.60 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked (via my watchlist), thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MS! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

You have not been accused of sockpuppetry, but consider the fact that I have made no edit (other than this one, check my contributions on this date!) Since you're the user who blocked my account (User:Dy11111), could you please open a sockpuppet investigation? Because it says that Dy11111 has been suspected of abuse of multiple accounts. 58.254.168.56 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

cypenamine correction[edit]

Good work I been trying to get rid of that stupid statement for ages.

That had to have been a miss quote, maybe it said the (+)trans isomer is more active than the racemate or somthing?

And could not believe a chemist put it back up (especially after all my explanations).--122.109.127.168 (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The statment was not supported by logic (Do you understand)?--122.109.127.168 (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration, your edits were vandal-like and so they were reverted without comment. Maybe that revert was done in haste, but many editors look through thousands of articles, and they have to do so rapidly. I see that you've discussed this point with other editors, so I won't belabor this point. In the future, please do not add your signature with ~~~~ to the article. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Dimethylglycine Preparation[edit]

So you wrote this - The hydrochloride is prepared via the Eschweiler–Clarke reaction, by treating glycine with aqueous formaldehyde in formic acid that serves as both solvent and reductant. This procedure avoids overalkylating glycine to a quaternary ammonium salt. The free amino acid is obtained by neutralization with silver oxide.

First what do you mean by (The hydrochloride is prepared) by this method. Where do the chloride ions come from in this scheme??.

I Highly doubt, nay Totally disbelieve, that any one would use silver oxide to neutralize any acidic amino-acid salt as a means of large scale production.--122.111.241.118 (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Just reposing this here. Dear sir, you are 100% correct and thus should have changed it, and Sorry I am a hopeless speller. I have not looked into this area any more at all yet or even really thought about it, and was just lazly tinkering with the emphasis etc, sorry. I also thought it was you that wrote that first bit? and also have had the same thought. Please forgive my mistakes. I am far from perfect and also am unsure as to your OMS statment intent(meaning). --122.111.241.118 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Me --OneMadScientist (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to, and should have earlier, sincerely apologize for any rude, disrespectful and arrogant comments I have made toward you Rifleman82, and can only say that I was lashing out, out of extreme frustration, at my perceived attackers (re - cypenamne reverts and diagreements) yours of which I understand was accidental and you then actually realised it after (but was then having to justify myself over and over to others with no support), SORRY PLEASE FORGIVE ME. I was only yesterday saying to Beetstra that you and he have been the only lucid people (in these areas) I have interacted with here as of yet--OneMadScientist (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneMadScientist (talkcontribs)


It appears I have inadvertently mangled your initial wording, sorry. I was/am very tired and sick, and am not functioning well. I have removed the statement (it is somewhat redundant) and fixed spelling. Please add back and reword as you see fit. I will turn my full attention to this soon (hopefully) in the most positive and constructive way I am able, but not today. Peace--OneMadScientist (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

After all I have had to endure here (re cypenamine OMG)!!!!, OMS = (Oh my science??) - Is a bit of a inappropriately applied sentiment for describing the (not so eloquent wording and spelling mistakes) that was the result of my addition of the (obviously intended word) alkylation etc, which is a grammar issue but does not in any way effect a change to the meaning of the science related statement that you initially wrote), Don't you agree????--OneMadScientist (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


(Just off the top of my head) It appears to me that there is an issue with the isolation/purification of the free form amino acid from reaction mixtures etc requiring more complex than I would have expected techniques (eg Ag2O and ion exchange resins) but this may only be an issue for producing ultra high purity pharma quality product. I am also quite confident that Ag2O is not used on any large scale, these days at-least,!!???. peace and my best regards--OneMadScientist (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneMadScientist (talkcontribs)

Please I have been trying hard to raise the level of our discussions here and be helpful, not bring the level of nitpicking to a new low, Please I do have a very bad spelling problem and I am sick. I have profusely and (usually I believe) been quite eloquently trying to explain myself (mostly in vain). lets try to be nice now I have apologized for my transgressions, and not only to you. Peace?--OneMadScientist (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For brevity, I had initialized your handle, OneMadScientist, to OMS. I was trying to discuss how to improve the wording of that paragraph, since the new phrasing was, in my words, "clumsy and redundant". I hardly find that nitpicking. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Google OMS meaning internet slang etc Could Very easily still be a perceived as some type of smart ass double entendre in the context it was used and you should have posted that "clarification?"! along with Your "Reply?"!! to my comment.

Quote "The point of the Eschweiler-Clarke synthesis is to avoid overalkylation, unlike using methyl iodide or similar. The reaction stops at the tertiary amine without going all the way to the quat. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)"

To which I replied, quite justifiably I believe.

Durrr..??? - OMS = OhMyScience!! Do you really believe you needed to explain that to me?? (What ever gave you that idea??).Put that directly in the article if you like - AS I SAID. I thought we both had concurred that it was redundant Due to the (prepared via the Eschweiler-Clarke synthesis) linked reaction. I fail to see any point to this comment you have made to me. Or Again What were/are you "trying" to say. So as it appears all my previous words were lost on you, Shall we start again positively and constructively??.--OneMadScientist (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So What exactly are you trying to explain to me was redundant? and no "ok apology accepted" or anything!.--OneMadScientist (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't use such internet slang, but interpret my words as you will. I felt that the first mention of alkylation was redundant since the original text mentioned that formaldehyde was used to avoid overalkylation of the amine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

User:OneMadScientist[edit]

Hello Rifleman 82! I do not believe I've had the pleasure of communicating with you before, however I look forward to this communication. I feel that it is most responsible to come here and ask you since you were the blocking admin. There is an {{unblock}} request on OneMadScientist's page. The day before yesterday (Friday, May 17, 2013), myself, TOS, Kelapstick, Koi, and QueenOfFrance had a long discussion with him on IRC (the log is posted just below the unblock request in a collapsed section). My question here for you today is, would you be willing to allow him access back to his talk page for the purposes of discussing with you or another administrator any terms of his unblocking and to come to an agreement? He has agreed to be civil and has apologized for his loss of temper. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Another admin looked into it, and unblocked him. Thanks anyways. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad there's resolution. I've been away. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

Chain-growth polymerization/polymerisation[edit]

Hi, Rifleman! How's life treating you! I saw your name in the edit history for Chain-growth polymerisation, and I'm hoping that you're an admin. I was wondering if you could move that article over to Chain-growth polymerization, which is currently a redirect to the former article. I see that the article was originally written by v8rik using US spellings, and US spellings are still used throughout, yet the article resides under a name with a UK spelling. I tried the move myself, but for some reason it wouldn't let me overwrite the redirect. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the earlier move step - I think someone had "anglicised" the lede which may have influenced the mover. Walkerma (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been keeping track, I've been busy. The move is done. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

Commons-diagram concern[edit]

Seems like you're not often as active on commons...wanted to ping you about an image of yours there. See User talk:Rifleman 82#File:Ethylaluminium sesquichloride-perspective.png. DMacks (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I believe it's taken care of. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

File:Diethyl malonate tautomers.gif listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Diethyl malonate tautomers.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

BACKLOG OF THE WEEK Category:Pages with broken reference names[edit]

Hello - some editors fight off the vandal hordes, as I do repairing pages with citation errors. If I didn't - there would be a large backlog in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and in Category:Pages with missing references list as in Category:Pages with broken reference names (more than 1500 yesterday). But it is impossible to work it alone. Do you know how to do a "Blitz" (excuse the comparision) to find willing editors to work on it. It is much more easier to repair references if you do it one hour, one day or one week ago after the errors were made instead of months and years after the error was done. Very, very difficult to find these errors.

Only with WikiBlame Search it is possible to find and repair such errors.

Best wishes & thanks --Frze > talk 09:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

Backlog template made by User:TheJJJunk[edit]

Backlog status (Purge)
Category Current status
Pages with incorrect ref formatting X mark.svg Not done
Pages with missing references list Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",".
Pages with broken reference names X mark.svg Not done

Best wishes --Frze > talk 03:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New REFBot[edit]

There is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Bot requests for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Thanks a lot in anticipation. --Frze > talk 03:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

Greetings again[edit]

Hi its been a while. I hope things are going well. I think that the macro that you wrote for Org Syn is broken. Org Syn changed their interface and that might be the problem. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've sent the folks over there an email. For now, I'm disabling the link-out. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the template for their new site URL scheme. Their site is broken on not-wide windows...some type of layout trick is preventing the browser from realizing the "NOTES"/etc sidebar is so far to the right, so it can get positioned off the edge of the display area and not trigger the availability of a horizontal scrollbar. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all. I've been in touch with their technical folks. They are restoring the validity of the old links for backward compatibility. The one example I tried works, but it appears an incomplete solution so I've returned to DMacks' version for now. I'll keep you all updated. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

ChemSpiderID[edit]

Hi, how are things going in sunny Texas? It's getting cold up here in NY! Anyway, I wanted to ask if you're able to do a small fix in the ChemSpiderID section of the Chembox.

Apparently, for a substance with ChemSpiderID of 12345 the outgoing link we have would go to www.chemspider.com/12345. However, this URL is (as I understand it) simply their equivalent of a redirect page, and the "official" URL should be www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.12345.html. I'm proposing we add Chemical-Structure. after the chemspider.com, then add html to the end of the URL, for the five parameters in the template that read ChemSpiderIDs. That way all the ChemSpider links should go directly to their "main page" for each structure. The relevant template is Template:Chembox ChemSpiderID. Would this work OK? If so, can you make the change? I'm not an admin, so I don't have the privileges. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Done! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! They all seem to be working fine now, and I checked with the RSC people and they confirmed it. I realized, though, that the drugboxes also need fixing. They currently omit the ".html" at the end of the URL. Could you add this into the relevant template, which I think is Template:Infobox_drug? Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

An editor has taken it upon themselves to split Sodium nitroprusside. I tried to hold a conversation but was blown off. I am also working so I dont have that much time on this thing. This process needs some sort of administrative intervention, because we do not just split mature articles just because one editor decides to override another. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

SNP order[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have reordered the Sodium nitroprusside page and now it's not in accordance with WP:PHARMMOS and I wanted to ask is that permissible due to its other uses or is it a mistake? Fuse809 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. It is by no means a mistake. I find it illogical to talk about the use of this compound as a drug before you even begin to define it (structure and properties), and discuss how it is prepared.
I am aware of arguments about how the public may find such information most relevant, but I reject it on the basis that people know to skip sections they are not interested in. The chemists have discussed and ratified WP:CHEMMOS that orders the sections in this manner. We can argue whether this is more of a drug or of a chemical but drugs (and all matter) are chemicals, even though I choose not to contest the replacement of the long-standing chembox with the drugbox.
Over the years, I have on occasion, proposed greater harmonization of CHEMMOS with sister wikiprojects (note that chembox includes drugbox parameters), but the medicine/pharma people have not been interested, as they are entitled. With that said, I find the lack of harmonization detrimental to the cause of Wikipedia because it promotes fragmentation, making it hard for people to find the information they want. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider taking a look at an article in AfC please?[edit]

Courtesy note: the "guidance has been delivered", so please IGNORE this message! FeatherPluma (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not a chemist but I am plodding through an AfC review of a proposed article. I am reaching out to two experienced chemist editors to take a look at a proposed article that is presently in AfC status.

(The other editor is DMacks; I identified you two by reviewing the relevant editor category page, and noting edit numbers and other criteria - my idea is that only one of you would look at this, so "whoever runs first" would be the only help on this, so sorry to bother "the other".)

So, if it is of interest to you, and the issue has not been addressed, would you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proline organocatalysis? Your help (or the help of any editor chemist to whom you can point me) in taking a quick look so as to avoid any glaring disasters would be appreciated.

In addition to anything that strikes you, I wonder if you can help confirm that the content within the proposed article should not be merged in some way to an existing article such as Hajos–Parrish–Eder–Sauer–Wiechert reaction ? - I don't think so but that's the kind of thing that I as a non-chemist would value you confirming, thanks.

I will of course gladly either stand down from edits during any period you want to run with this or indeed entirely relinquish the AfC review to you. Thank you for your consideration. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note: the "guidance has been delivered", so please IGNORE this message! FeatherPluma (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#element infobox and comment if you if you wish.Petergans (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

periodic table[edit]

Please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#element infobox and comment if you if you wish.Petergans (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Singapore Pools.png[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Singapore Pools.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Syed (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Query—published ORTEP to space-filling representation conversion[edit]

Rifleman, how do you create a Wikimedia image, based on crystallographic data from a journal like OM? Nice job on the KHMDS crystal structure image, and any related. Do you use the journal-provided coordinates, with thermal data (as used to generate the ORTEP), then generate the image in a program that allow representation of atom locations in the space-filling manner, then rotate in 3D to pick your pose? What program used for all this, if I might ask? Cheers, thanks. MarkE D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprof 7272 (talkcontribs) 13:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks.

If I can find the cif file as supplementary information, or in CCDC, I'll just use that. If I'm keying in the coordinates by hand, I don't worry too much about the thermal ellipsoids, especially if they don't look too awful. I usually manipulate the structure in Mercury, but I sometimes use Avogadro as well (does not support thermal ellipsoids). When I've got the orientation I want, I export it to POV-Ray (a ray tracing program), and use it to generate a high quality PNG bitmap. Lastly, I trim the borders as needed with Irfanview. That's how I do it, at least.

Another Wikichemist that's really good at this is User:Benjah-bmm27. My work in this regard was actually inspired by his. If you need more help, do let me know. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Might wish to have a look[edit]

…at my comment regarding the apparently misplaced paragraph on NO in schizophrenia et al, at the nitroprusside paragraph. I have a serious OR concern, given the text and article titles provided. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Calculation of the Ka value[edit]

Hi Rifleman,

The question is about the calculation of the Ka value. For example:

Ka(H2O) = [OH
]×[H+
]÷[H2O] = (Density(OH
)÷Molar mass(OH
))×(Density(H+
)÷Molar mass(H+
))÷(Density(H2O)÷Molar mass(H2O)) ≈ (?g/L÷17.01g/mol)×(?g/L÷1.01g/mol)÷(999.97g/L÷18.01g/mol) ≈ ?mol/L×?mol/L÷55.52mol/L

But how to get the Density(OH
) and Density(H+
)? Or is it possible to get the [OH
] and [H+
] directly?

Thanks. 123.119.16.126 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gadolinium nitrate properties[edit]

Hi! I've seen that you were the initiator of the article gadolinium nitrate and I'm asking you if you know some data tables containing properties of this salt and its solution in light and heavy water and in general of other salts properties in the same conditions.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)