User talk:Rifleman 82

Older discussions archived at

• User_talk:Rifleman_82/Archive 1 (End Oct 2006).
• User_talk:Rifleman_82/Archive 2 (End Dec 2006).
• User_talk:Rifleman_82/Archive 3 (End Feb 2007).
• User_talk:Rifleman_82/Archive 4 (End Oct 2007).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Steam distillation Pot still Gasification Still Sodium bis(trimethylsilyl)amide Enlisted rank Alkoxide Fraction (chemistry) Fluoropolymer Polybutadiene Carbon-carbon bond Double distilled water Cyanate Tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium(0) Strong base Tincture Dehydration reaction Thermolysis Triphenylphosphine

Cleanup Chemical test for cyanide List of organic chemistry topics Plastic bag Merge Thermal decomposition Solubility Polyoxymethylene Add Sources Octane rating Sulfur mustard Paint Wikify Good Laboratory Practice Decaborane Karen Horney Expand Cyclopentadienyl complex Edinburgh Castle Methyl isobutyl ketone

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock

 :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I do. Wouldn't you like to get them too? RfA is no big deal, you know... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your faith in me. Having the mop will certainly be nice, but so far I have not had much need for it. The RFA process needs a bit of thought; I probably would consider applying when I have a bit more time. Thanks once again! --Rifleman 82 14:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, think about it :) Anytime, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

pl:Grafika:Linia prozniowa jednodrozna.jpg

Hi,

I haven't this picture without the captions, however I can take a camera and make better pictures of various vac-lines in my lab tommorow :-) We have both vacuum-gas lines as well as high vacuum lines.

Polimerek 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See:

• 
• 
• 

Cheers,

Polimerek 13:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Polimerek!

P/S It is quite obvious that you are a Chemist. If you are active on the English wikipedia, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, where you can find fellow chemists. If you have time, perhaps you can help improve condenser (laboratory) by translating the polish article which seems much more detailed? --Rifleman 82 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi there, would you be interested in having a few more buttons on your toolbar? Tim Vickers 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Thanks for your faith in me. Like I told Fvasconcellos here, the RfA process feels daunting and of late, my time here has been quite limited time here. But, yes, I think having the mop will allow me to contribute more. I'll go look at the RfA documents again. If you have a moment, perhaps you can guide me through? Thanks! --Rifleman 82 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll deal with all the technicalities of templates and stuff, all you would have to do is accept the nomination and answer the questions. Tim Vickers 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, that was fast! I'll look at it later, during lunchtime. --Rifleman 82 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, glad to hear it! It's about time :) When I chose to accept the nomination, the first thing I did was look at WP:ADMIN (not that you'll need to, I presume :) and take a couple of days to read through WP:PREP and beef up on policy, as suggested by Samir—and I don't regret it. When answering the questions, just be yourself; if you get an optional question asking "what would you do in situation X", just say what you'd do :) It's also nice to have a clear idea of what exactly you'd like (or need) to do with the tools; that way, when you get them, you can get started right away ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise, Fvas. Much appreciated! --Rifleman 82 16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK the nomination is up. Good luck, not that you'll need it. Tim Vickers 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point, the statement "Lets say you are in a edit war with a user" is a bit of a "Are you still beating your wife?" question. Tim Vickers 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

chembox -> chembox new

I wanted to ask this already for some time, but I have been away, and haven't spent time on this front. But now I ran into your RFA, (though Tim suggests in his addition of the RFA that he wants to delete WP:RFA ;-) ), I saw you mentioning the chembox -> chembox new task. Can you guesstimate how far you are with {{chembox}} -> {{chembox new}}? I see we have a couple of thousands of transclusions, it must be almost finished (?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (P.S. good luck with your RFA).

Yes, indeed, we're almost there! The User:Beetstra/Chemicals/Worklist is actually in your userspace! There are about 600 remaining now, not counting those which I clicked "ignore" for a variety of reasons. When I do run awb, my personal quota is 50 per day. But since today is a public holiday, maybe I can clear more. Anyway, my guestimate is 2 weeks. If I have more time, shorter. --Rifleman 82 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. That is nice. I guess it is time then to 'demolish' the old chembox, and turn it into the subst template for e.g. a medium {{chembox new}}. Do you keep a list of the pages which you have ignored? We could put them up for 'still to be done by hand' on the wikiproject (or I can try and adapt the script a bit further to do some more of that). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you can edit {{Chembox}} already since it is not transcluded anyway. Perhaps the simple version of {{chembox new}} is sufficient, though I would like to add the ExternalMSDS field to it. I don't have a list of those I have ignored, but I can easily generate it by taking the difference between {{chembox header}} and {{chembox header2}}. --Rifleman 82 10:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will change {{chembox}}. It would be nice if you could generate the list of ignored articles in the end. I could have a look at them, and report the rest to the to-do list of wikiproject chemicals. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. For the ignored articles, some are simply not chemicals — they only use the {{Chembox header}} for aesthetic reasons. These can be permanently ignored. For some others, they require extensive hand-coding, so they can be fixed eventually. For the last category, such as the article on Xylenes, we have to give some thought on how we want to organize the table, recognizing the limitations of {{Chembox new}}. Anyway, I'll clear all the easy ones, and I'll leave the hand-coding work and discussion-required work in the worklist.--Rifleman 82 10:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

3,3'-Diaminobenzidine

I was looking at the 3,3'-Diaminobenzidine controversy. I strongly agree with you that WP is not a MSDS, and that toxicity sections should not look like a copy-and-paste from a MSDS. But why did you delete the NFPA data from the infobox? That is part of the standard infobox and it is included in many Wikipedia chemical articles. Similarly, data such as LD50 could also be added to the infobox instead of simply deleted from the article. --Itub 09:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itub. You're right, NFPA should not have been deleted. I'm sorry for that. As for LD_50, this field was only recently implemented in {{Chembox new}}. I've restored both. Thanks for your note. --Rifleman 82 10:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, Rifleman—you can kiss those autoblocks goodbye ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for your help and advise! --Rifleman 82 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No surprise here. Congrats. Now go delete something!  :) --Ed (Edgar181) 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks Ed! --Rifleman 82 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Rudget _zŋ 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, now get that mop out and start cleaning! Physchim62 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Favor

Hi Rifleman 82, first off, well done! Hope you find the tools useful. You might have noticed that your nomination was one of several others I made over that last week, this was partly spurred by the threat of IPs being allowed to create new pages, but also has a more general objective. This other reason for this effort was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority. I decided that the best way of dealing with this idea was to greatly expand the pool of admins to include a wider diversity of the pool of editors.

Since you have now passed the selection, could you in turn select and nominate some people you trust - I'd suggest aiming for about three over the next month or so. Of those who are selected, could you ask them in turn to select and nominate three candidates. Such a chain of trust should result, over time, in a greatly enlarged pool of admins and thus provide a simple and effective way of spreading the responsibility - perhaps to the point where becoming an admin is seen as normal and expected, rather than a major achievement. I hope you'll be able to help me with this. Thank you. Tim Vickers 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may comment, trust is very important. However, nominating someone just because you have a quota seems to me as though this could lead to a hasty decision. --CyclePat 03:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, hence the suggestion only, of "about" three people over "perhaps" a month or so - that's not a quota. I trust Rifleman 82's judgement enough to know that if he comes across more suitable candidates he might nominate more, or find fewer, nominate less. Or even think the whole idea is a poor one and ignore me entirely. It's really up to him. All the best Tim Vickers 03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, just a remark. b.t.w: I kind of like the idea of not making a big hipe about being admin... it seems as though you have a spanish incosition, then the nomination, then... Anyways, my appologies if I infered some insult (pre-judgement, etc). :) Best regards. --CyclePat 04:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, Cyclepat

I see your point and I would be happy to participate. I agree it probably shouldn't be a quota. Perhaps you can look at it as identifying *all* editors who have gained the trust of the community to promote them as administrators. Perhaps to the extent that being an admin is in the natural progression for the serious contributor. And that once again, many hands make light work.

That said, I have a few ideas of who to nominate, but I will wait until I settle into and understand the role of an admin fully before I do so. Once again, Tim, thanks for your nom, support, advise! --Rifleman 82 04:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

-CyclePat 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi CyclePat

I already do understand WP:V, and I have seen this here before. I assume you are referring to the discussion at Talk:Mass spectrometry. While citations are required to back up assertions, we should not need to pick nits about what are straightforward initialisms. Are you going to demand a citation for ¹H NMR and ¹³C NMR spectrometryspectroscopy next? --Rifleman 82 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rifleman 82,

I wish I knew what that was... a citation from a book would be good. Yes. I'm guessing that's a chemical component? Are you trying to make H2O2 CH something something... chemistry class. I'dd expect you to have a reference for that... so I can get the book and make my own objective comment... and add maybe then add more information to the article. --CyclePat 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NMR - Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy. See also proton NMR spectroscopy (¹H), carbon-13 NMR spectroscopy (¹³C). --Rifleman 82 06:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is in an unfortunate crusade for "finding sources" for every MS abbreviation, and has been inflicting it on the MS disambiguation page. See Talk:MS for more details. --Itub 05:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What is unfortunate? The crusade? Finding sources? Or the fact that MS disambiguation is using articles which don't even mention the term MS? --CyclePat 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC

I'll be there in a while, an hour or so maybe. I have some news for you all! Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive single-purpose account

If you don't mind, please look into this user. Chensiyuan 13:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to look into "my account". I accept that I have done some wrong, but having been warned (perhaps a little inappropriately) I am now reformed and only intend to contribute constructively. Dramanote 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hold you to that. --Rifleman 82 13:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Stone Gods

I've removed your 'nn' tag from this article as it meets the WP:BAND notability criteria "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - in this case three members of The Darkness. Exxolon (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added some references - most are not great but there is an article from Classic Rock Magazine's official website that mentions they are supporting Thin Lizzy - I think this site meets WP:RS, the others may not. Exxolon (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:JustinRoth

I originally userfied a page created by this user, which you have since deleted citing A1 - no context. I'm a little confused by your deletion, since it was a userpage, not an article, and thus the article criteria don't apply. Natalie (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that's kind of what I suspected. I checked the deletion log in the first place because I thought I might have accidently deleted it! Natalie (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter

I had blanked the page by accident while editing it. I have updated the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journals88 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

George Cross

I notice you reinstated a bizarre notability tag on James Patrick Scully. This is the second time you've tagged it thus. Winners of the second highest award for gallantry in the British Commonwealth are clearly notable. Take it to AfD if you think otherwise. If you still think wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding people who've won important awards should be ignored feel free to take all the people on this list [1] to AfD too. You were wrong to tag it for lacking a reference as well, seeing it was referenced to the official Government paper of record in Great Britain. I notice you've just been made an administrator, which makes your actions here all the stranger. Nick mallory (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article and felt that it was likely to be notable. That is why I didn't tag it for AfD. However, the article's references were not properly formatted. That, I have fixed.

The article does not assert the person's notability, in that there is only one (not multiple) references in which the subject is given significant coverage. Two, if you count the external link which appears to be a database of George Cross recipients. In comparison with other articles in the list you mentioned, Albert Guérisse, Wallace Oakes, and James William Nightall have so much more context with regard to the claim of notability.

Lastly, your edit summary here doesn't seem very civil. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It was simply accurate. You tagged a referenced article for having no references then twice tagged a clearly notable subject as not being notable. You wasted my time in doing this. You haven't apologised for your mistake and continue to argue about it, although on ever shifting grounds. Nick mallory (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to WP:OWN the articles you started? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Nick, I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of notability here. The subject in question doesn't seem notable in his own right, to be honest, and that's what counts here - Alison ^❤ 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He won the second highest award for gallantry in Britain. How can that not be notable in its own right? Nick mallory (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Alison, see WikiProject Miltary history/Style guide#Notability, the GC is equal to the VC and confers inherent notability, at least so far as that project is concerned. They are usually the subject of significant media coverage at the time of the award, adn frequently receive an obit purely by virtue of the GC award, but such things aren't that easy to find for wartime awards. David Underdown (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick, there's absolutely no need to be rude about this. We're all working for the better of the encyclopedia here. David - can you provide more information as to precedent for the inherent notability of GC recipients? - Alison ^❤ 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I think the MilHist take is a specific example of applying WP:BIO#Additional criteria "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." There is no more significant honour within the British and Commonwealth Honours system than a GC (or VC) (Some Commonwealth countries have now initiated their own equivalent awards). There have been under 160 GCs awarded to individuals (there have been two collective awards, for the island of Malta, and the RUC) since the award was initiated in 1940 (counting awards is slightly complicated because the award was set up in such a way that the recipients of a number of previous awards were required to exchange the honour they had originally been awarded for the GC), so it's certainly not something that's dished out lightly. In some cases I suppose it could be argued that a recipient may fall under "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted", but I assume that was taken into account when the Mil Hist guideline was drawn up - I wasn't party to the discussions, so if you have issues with it, it's probably better to take it up on the project talkpage. David Underdown (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Winning an award is not enough by itself. We need to have sources to write an article that is longer than two lines. At the time Rifleman added the tag under dispute, the article was two lines long and was supported only by a link that didn't seem to provide much additional information. Under those circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for more references or for deleting/merging the article into the article about the award. Now that the article has been expanded to more than two lines and that it has more than one source, it seems notable enough in my opinion. However, I'm not so keen on the pasting of the whole Gazette text. --Itub (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with creating stubs. For a GC winner there will always be a Gazette entry - the search function can be a little difficult to navigate so it can be a bit tricky to find. There will almost certainly exist press covereage, but unless you happen to have access to 1940s newspapers, or a subscription to some of the growing numbers eg online archives it maybe beyond the ability of the original article creator to find, but if someone comes across the article and does have such access, it will hopefully prompt them to expand the article. It seems fairly common to post the whole citation for these sorts of awards (look at winners of the Medal of Honor as well), Scully's is particularly long admittedly, I thinkn the position of the infobox makes it appear longer as it is centred on what remains of the screen. The Gazette strictly speaking remains copyright for 50 years, so strictly speaking we probably shouldn't include the full citation for awards newer than this (I think some articles have though), paraphrasing it would be an alternative. David Underdown (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice concerning the article americum

I see – together with, at least, User:Vsmith and User:JWB – you are one of the active contributors on the topic. I left a message for JBW at his talk page. With all expert knowledge and yours, it will be easy to decide this wee problem. I'm not expert on the topic.  -- Gluck 123 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must decline. I am a chemist, not a nuclear physicist. My interest in this article was to bring referencing, etc. up to standard to upload to Veropedia. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Chem-awb

Put back the hazard data on ammoniium perchlorate. -lysdexia 04:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)