User talk:Plasmic Physics/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Does not article appearance trump edit page appearance?

Just a question upon your Morphine-N-oxide revert of mine. The very point of article edits is for the end result page. There are many instances of cluttered code, but the formatting of the end result takes precedence. I see no other examples where the other way about would be the case. Is there an instance in favor of such from the Wikipedia MoS? Nagelfar (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

When you update chembox data, please cite references for physical values (e.g. transition temperatures, densities, etc.). You often put wrong density, like here. Materialscientist (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by the density is wrong? It is found in the webbook. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A gas can not weigh ~1 g/cm³ at room temperature - such error was showing up in your several past chembox revisions. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Appologies, the value was actually obtained from Sigma Aldrich, and it appears that the given density is that of the compressed product in the gas cyclinder in the form that it is supplied. I have reverted to the previous value, with minor changes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This was expected, but was not the point of this thread. The previous value is reasonable, but how do you know it is correct? A hint: you've cited pubchem, and while they usually give only theoretical values (which should never be used) in this case they apparently give measured ones too.

If you have some reference book, like CRC handbook, at hand - do use and cite it when updating chemboxes. We even got them templated, like {{RubberBible86th}}. Materialscientist (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethane

Frankly, I didn't notice where the refs were showing up when writing my edit summary. Anyway. The result should be notable information cited to reliable sources, the rest is coding games. I believe my version is somewhat closer to that than yours. In your version, refs are bundled, and thus it is unclear which one cites what. One more note which applies to your other edits: dm3 is not used in scientific literature, liter is used instead. Let us respect that. Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't ChemProject agree that only STP data be added to the chembox except where exceptional cases exist? Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Tetrasulfur tetranitride

Hi Plasmic Physics, I noticed you have edited the article Tetrasulfur tetranitride recently, and wanted you to look at the last two edits for accuracy (history). Here is my revert diff of the anon IP's last two edits (in this case to Rutaceae), to give you an idea why I question his/her accuracy. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Methylene

Hi Plasmic Physics, within this edit you changed It is stable in the gaseous state. to It is not stable in the gaseous state. Could you please add a reference for this correction or at least explain it? Thanks --Mabschaaf (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Methylene is a Reactive intermediate, so it is stable, but short-lived and can not be isolated. My proposal would be to remove the not and to add an explanation with respect to the role of the compound as a reactive intermediate.--S nova (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but care to explain the difference between unstable and short-lived, then I won't make the same mistake again. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Both unstable and short-lived are relative terms. The term short-lived addresses the chemical kinetics of a reaction, stability the thermodynamic properties, that's the main difference. In the context of reactive intermediates, the latter occur because they have a local minimum in the energy profile of a reaction and need (an extremely low) activation energy to react further to more stable products. A molecule must survive long enough to be detected e.g. via IR spectroscopy, so its lifetime must provide at least enough time for a number of oscillations that can be spectroscopically detected (this is what is meant by short lived, often this is done e.g. in matrix isolation experiments to exclude reaction partners as long as possible and at low temperatures to slow down reactions. A truly unstable molecule would decompose at a high rate unimolecularly. Methylene needs a certain activation energy and reaction partners (methylene or other molecules) to react furher. In short: Methylene per se is stable, but extremely reactive.--S nova (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Butane

You reverted my edit where I changed the density units to the SI unit, which I believe allows more ready comparison with other gas pages, and a more familiar appreciation. Is there something significant about "mg/mL" (which you've reverted it to) that I'm unaware of? It seems obscure.

If it's a suitable unit, perhaps some reference could be made at density?

While this is a relatively minor edit on this page, if it's a bad edit then I'll need to revert all the other gas pages I changed too - it seems every page had a different unit!

LightYear (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of years ago, I commited to a similiar effort to convert units to SI units, but the Chemistry Project soon contested my actions argueing, in chemistry mass and volume is rarely measured in kilograms and cubic metres, and that it would be best to decide on units on a case by case basis. All the same, they do prefer uniformity between chemboxes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Remark: In de.wikipedia the unit g·cm⁻³ is used for all compounds that are liquids or solids, whereas kg·m⁻³ is used for all gaseous compounds. --Leyo 10:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's their system. We have to contend with our Chemistry Project. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide the link to the archived discussion? --Leyo 11:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, I'd have to search for it aswell. Ask MaterialScientist, maybe he can remember. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Putting alkyl iodides in the 'related alkanes' box

Hi Plasmic Physics,

I see you've been adding iodoalkanes to the 'Related compounds' section of the chemboxes in alkane articles, e.g. this edit to Butane.

Any particular reason for this? Iodoalkanes aren't alkanes, obviously. If we have iodoalkanes in there, why not bromoalkanes, chloroalkanes, fluoroalkanes, alcohols, thiols, amines, alkylmetals, or any other derivatives of alkanes formed by replacement of a methyl hydrogen with another element? --Ben (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Iodoalkanes are related to alkanes, because they are substituted alkanes. I added iodoalkanes to the chembox because there are relatively few of them to relate to their parent alkanes. There are enough chloroalkanes to compare with each other and they don't need a host. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, probably best to add the parent alkanes to the chembox in the iodoalkane article, rather than the other way round. This is how I would do it. That way, you have "Related alkanes: Propane, Isobutane, Pentane" and "Related compounds: Butyl compounds, Perfluorobutane". It avoids implying that iodobutane is an alkane. Using the generic "butyl compounds" and linking to the article Butyl covers all C₄H₉X molecules. There may be relatively few articles on Wikipedia about iodoalkanes compared to chloroalkanes, but I'm sure most chloroalkanes that exist have an iodo analogue that also exists. There's no reason to give iodoalkanes special prominence. --Ben (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the physics help Paradoxical 0^2 (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a pleasure. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hill system

Please use the Hill system for molecular formulas of organic chemical compounds. Molecular formulas in all databases and catalogs, both electronic and print, use this system. Wikipedia should do the same. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't like the Hill system. Besides, we decided that we're not going to decide on which system based on organic or inorganic, it's a case by case decision. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you like. It is clear from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2005, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2008, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2009, [[1]] the for organic compounds the Hill system is clearly preferred (for inorganic or organometallic, there doesn't seem to be clear consensus). It doesn't make any sense at all for Wikipedia to use something you made up rather than something that the rest of the world uses. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks likle you missed the more recent address of this issue, check the 2011 archive. There is not clear concensus on which sytem to use: the Hill system, or the IUPAC system. I am using the IUPAC system, I find that it is a logical system, and that it presents fewer astetic problems than the Hill system. Unless the ChemProject is willing to resume the case, and close it, I will continue using my best judgement. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is clear: the Hill system for organics, for non-organics we use IUPAC - You are the only one in that discussion who suggests IUPAC system for all, and a non-consensus does not override previous consensus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you'll have to point out the actuall discussions specifically addressing the chembox fields, I can only find miscellaneous categorisation projects in the suggested archives. In the 2011 archive it seems as though Dirk is the only one opposed to using the IUPAC systems to the same extent as Materialscientist and myself advocates. It seems that the concessus tends to swing our way. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Read again. Leyo also suggests that they look fine for organics ("This is perfectly fine for organic chemicals."). In any case, no-consensus means that old consensus stays, even if there is a slight preference to one side.

The discussion is reopened @ WT:CHEM. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussions refered to are not consider the chembox entries, that consensus should apply only to the articles spaces. I'll post all futher comments at the Project. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Your behavior at Talk:Barack Obama is becoming problematic, as it is clear that you do not or will not understand when other editors have patiently explained Wikipedia policy and why your proposed sourceless edit is unacceptable. If you do not understand Wikipedia policy on sourcing and biography, you are strongly advised to acquaint yourself with these policies, and in all cases to avoid editing biographies of living persons until you have demonstrated an understanding of policy. Your constant repetition of the same misguided question on a very high-profile article is becoming disruptive. Please consider this a warning to stop what amounts to a violation of WP:BLP; editors on that page have been more than patient. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not read the complete discussion. Have you read it, you would have know that I am not attempting to add a sourceless edit. I am repeatedly asking the same question, because the discussion keeps moving off topic by comments similiar to yours. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that the article Barack Obama is under general sanctions (see WP:GS/BO and the notice at the top of the article talk page just above the table of contents). That means that actions relating to the article and its talk page are judged "according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia". Editors who do not comply with that advice may be blocked at any time, and I suggest that extending a discussion about a fringe view (connecting Obama with Freemasonry) with no sources would be an example of non-compliant behavior. If you have a proposal, it is up to you to find suitable sources (see WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:BLP). If you have a query about sources, see WP:HELPDESK or WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I would have a proposal, if my question was not repeatedly being side-stepped by the very people who has an issue with the lack thereof. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. Talk:Barack Obama is not a forum for your speculations on Obama. You've provided no sources for your speculation, which has no support among any other editors. You've ignored patient advice. You appear to be determined to ask the same question over and over again with no attempt on your part to understand the advice you've been given in response. You've been given direct answers on why your speculation is not acceptable. The question has not been sidestepped - the question itself is inappropriate. The article and its talkpage are under general sanctions. Your comments are becoming disruptive. I am an administrator: you may be blocked from editing for a while if you continue to ignore other editors and disrupt the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not speculating; I am willing provide sources for my statement, which does not need support as it is a fact and not an idea; I understand the advice as completely as is neccesary; I do not care much for answers on why speculation is not acceptable, given that it is not speculation; the question is quite appropriate as there exists a reasonable answer and it lays within the domain of a talk page; and I am not ignoring other editors, I have acknowledged each edit which repeats an idea, which I have already responded once to; infact, I'm being ignored by editors not acknowledging my responses to their suggestions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are ignoring other editors. You've been asked to provide reliable sources to back up your assertion and have provided none, simply repeating your question over and over in the face of a reasonable response. A "reasonable answer" exists only if you've got a reliable source, which you've not provided despite several requests. You appear to misunderstand: all "facts" of any kind must be supported by reliable sources, particularly if they are liable to be questioned, as is the case here. If you have no third-party reliable sources (your personal observations are not useful on WP), you're merely speculating and wasting other editors' time and patience. I'll make it easy: add a link to a reliable web-based source here, or in the case of a print source, provide the name of the publication, the date, title and author here. Please remember that BLP policy covers every part of Wikipedia, including talkpages, so theorizing about an individual's membership in an organization without solid proof is not acceptable on that person's talkpage. Since you appear to misunderstand basic Wikipedia policy, please read these: WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP, which has been requested of you on several occasions: those will provide some of the answers you seek, and will help you to understand your difficulty. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring the question. I can only give a reliable source once it is answered. I don't need to read the policy again. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring answers. Please provide a reliable source as requested, or there is nothing further to discuss. We can't work with a hypothesis: sources come first, then we can tell you how it might be formatted. Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'answers' require a question, seeing as though I did not ask about policy, or ask about what the statement requires (more than once), I fail to see how those are 'answers'. Each point to be cited may require a different type of source. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To quote what I take to be the core of your question: "Specifically, what do I cite: the unproven allegations of freemasonry, that the grips are of a freemason style, or that he performed those grips?" Is this the issue you're concerned with? Acroterion (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is all I need to know for now. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

None of these items means anything without a reliable source. You can't use or insert (which is what I gather you mean by "cite") unproven allegations, which should be entirely obvious by now, nor can you insert your opinion that he's using a Masonic grip. The first clause is patently unacceptable, the second and third are mere theorizing. Acroterion (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean that they mean nothing? I can understand that they have no credability if they are uncited, but to have no meaning is just an unknown concept. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How about a different word, then: "inadmissible." That's why you keep being pointed to policy: you must understand that such speculation is not admissible in a biography on Wikipedia, according to the three policies you claim to understand. Acroterion (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How does that work then, if I remove them from the statement, there will be nothing left to cite? It seems we are in a stalemate in that case - I can't give a reference if I don't know what to look for, and you can't tell me what to look for if I can't give you a reference. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell you how to find your supporting material: that's up to you. You can't make unsupported statements in articles, so it's your responsibility to present appropriate sourcing, which is why you keep being asked for sourcing for your hypothetical addition first. This isn't like a research paper, in which you state a hypothesis, then develop support (or disproof) through your research. You must already have supporting documentation before developing the content. Wikipedia content follows rather than leads: that's what a tertiary source does - it presents a digest of secondary sources. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I know how to find my own supporting material, I just to know for what. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, you need to be able to support every word you write. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is all three, then why didn't you say so to begin with? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We did: that's why everybody was rather alarmed about your apparent lack of understanding of policy, and why you were pointed to RS, V, BLP and FRINGE. It's not a "choose one" option from a self-defined list, as you appear to believe: it's something else entirely, which doesn't appear to fit in with your preconceptions. You do not appear to have perceived that our concerns were at variance from yours, and you demanded a narrow answer that fit your preconceptions when the appropriate answer was a broad reference to the encyclopedia's policies. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't obvious. I never indicated that they had to choose one only, or even any single one that I suggested. I do not have a concern to be at variance with, I am tending to others' concerns with my edit(s on the talk page). Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am guessing that you normally do good work in physics areas where trolling and other misbehaviors are rare, and so are quite unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works on a page like that for a prominent politician, and have never encountered Arbcom general sanctions. Those of us less fortunate (who have encountered such issues) have often seen trolls raise matters with inappropriate sources, then argue the case just for the exercise of wasting the time of other editors. The general sanctions are intended to short circuit such behavior, and you must change tactics (or be blocked). If I added text to some physics article suggesting that if treated in a certain way, water can be used as an unlimited source of energy, physics editors may very well not want to argue the point with me until I provide at least one source—a redflag claim needs strong sources. Suggesting that the President of the United States does weird things in handshakes is nearly as absurd as a claim about water being a source of energy, but in the case of Obama, WP:BLP and the general sanctions also apply. Please do not take any more time regarding this matter (no more time-wasting questions) unless you have some strong sources. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of the above development? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.126 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Crucifixion

Hi, Plasma Physics.

I noticed you amended your spelling here. Good on you for caring enough to try, but I should tell you the word crucifixion has no letter "t". It starts with crucifix, and simply adds -ion. The last 2 syllables are usually pronounced like "fiction", but not spelled like that. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Transparent liquids

Hi, I was going to remove adjective "transparent" that appears in some descriptions of liquids. I hope that you agree, there isnt really any alternative to transparent other than mulky or turbid, in which case the liquid is not homogeneous. But you might have different views because I know you can be attentive to such details. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mercury is one example of an opaque liquid; I append transparent colourless for the sake of consistency. I won't contest it where you remove transparent. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ref desk

Hi. It looks like you edit conflicted with me and ended up deleting my post here. Please be careful! --Tango (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award

Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for systematic names

Hi Plasmic Physics. In an edit summary at Ethambutol, you said "ChemSpider decided by ChemProject to be insufficient as a source for names". Can you please show me where this was discussed? I'm curious about which sources people think are acceptable and which are not acceptable. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

After trying to find it in the archives, I gave up. I don't remember where. However, it was decided that chemical vendors and ChemSpider is unreliable, and more recently NIST WebBook was also decided to be unreliable, because it does not distinguish from brand names. I think the decision for the for the two, is related to the nitric acid incident. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking. Which source(s) would you consider reliable enough to be acceptable? -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I only insert cited systematic names, not other names, abbreviations, or PINs - I leave that to others. The systematic names I insert, I source from ChEBI and PubChem. Other names besides systematic names, are allowed to be cited from the Merck index or from the CAS index, or from peer reviewed journal articles. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I will use those sources when I come across your requests for citations for chemical names. Or, since you regularly add links to ChEBI, etc. yourself, you could just as easily check ChEBI before asking for a citation. :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If I ask for a citation to a systematic name when it is given in ChEBI, it is because it does not agree with the 2005 IUPAC recomendations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

New element names

Last Wednesday the IUPAC has officially named elements 114 and 116 (formerly temporarily named ununquadium and ununhexium) flerovium and livermorium, respectively. Please do not undo my changes reflecting these new names. --Lambiam 06:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get the memo. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is the announcement. --Lambiam 06:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

ld50 values tetramethylethylenediamine

where is the ref for the ld50 values? I just fixed a transcription error, which you then reworked/repaired, but you deleted the MSDS I gave as a ref. 70.137.131.152 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

BecauseI didn't use that reference when I added the value. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you insert the ref you used? As of now its citation needed. 70.137.131.152 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I used the Sigma Aldrich MSDS. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Chembox values other than identifiers are never referenced unless a request is placed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Against what do you proofread the values then? You are lucky that I found it implausible and looked it up. A chembox ref for such things is reqd for principal reasons of verifiability. You see it is possible to fall victim to transcription errs. 70.137.131.152 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 70.137.131.152 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

See, you managed just fine without one. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I am a professional. I am not convinced that we need no chembox refs 70.137.131.152 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 70.137.131.152 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of these refs is to make the values traceable to a document, such that you can patch back errata and updates, and make it "proof-readable". That I managed fine is a fallacy as an argument. So please take tha advice, if you claim to do scientific work. We are not in prep school. 70.137.131.152 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just following common practice; in any case, accuracy of data is covered in the Wikipedia disclaimer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know where it is common practice not to source statements and values. If you do not want to source and you delete sources then it is a very own special scientific method. Maybe they teach you next year. Not worth my time. 70.137.148.219 (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're definitely not going to get cooperation when you are being rude. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Look I have just told you that wiki articles, in particular numerical values should be sourced, and told you why. It is certainly not rude to finally assume that you are still a beginning student and are not well experienced in scientific writing. Maybe in your thesis you will need to be more precise. Until then. 70.137.148.219 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why telling me that they should be sourced is of any consequence, I'm not a spokesman for the Chemistry Project. It seems presumtuous to infer that I am inexperienced in scientific writting based only on this situation. Infact I am a fourth year university student. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For 4th year it is a bit slow.

I knew from my days at secondary school that using Wikipedia as a reference is not acceptable. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Using Wiki as a source has nothing to do with sourcing of wiki articles. WP:RS It is not verifiable if I cannot check against a source, because you don't write from which document you got the value. In particular ld50 values should be sourced, as they are not objective physical constants, which can verified from each table work. Usually they are quoted from a collection of refs, which again cite their original sources. In such things as refractive index it is easy to use std tableworks like NIST book, thats different. 4th year is a spring chicken. 70.137.139.108 (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The anon user is quite obviously correct here. Everything on WP, in an info box or anywhere else, has to be verifiable. Many times inline cites will be omitted from infoboxes but in some way there has to be a method to verify the information being presented. That Wikipedia doesn't guarantee accuracy of data does not mean that there is a lack of requirement to submit WP:V data based on WP:RS's; that is a specious argument. SÆdon ^talk 10:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, bring it up with the Chemistry Project. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Chemistry project says nowhere, that chembox entries should not be cited to a reference. So where did you get that information? I would kindly ask Plasmic Physics not to violate WP:RS and not to delete references introduced by other editors for the purpose of providing a WP:RS source. 70.137.139.7 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that it did, I said ask them what is appropriate. As I said I deleted it because it was not the reference that I used. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

But it was then the reference that I used to provide reliable source. You should not delete reliable sources added by other editors. What you used is immaterial. 70.137.150.154 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dates

Actually, that's the ISO format ISO_8601#Calendar_dates. Not that it matters. They used to be preferred because they could be automagically converted to whichever date format the user wanted (5 Jun 2012; June 5, 2012; etc.)--Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, who do you side with in Aminoacetonitrile? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See here: [[2]] It is by no means unprofessional but the ISO norm for tech/natural science. I do not know what APA format is? Psychologists, Psychiatrist or Philosophers assoc. or what? Anyway, ISO is really a standard and not unprofessional and is choice for tech/sci. Trust me I am a professional, believe it finally. 70.137.141.29 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a patent though, why are you directing me to a patent citation template? If you don't understand what APA style referencing is then I suggest looknig into, and avoiding edits like this. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The ISO referencing system appears to be reserved for technical reports and such. It's not suitable for such a varied application. APA style is by far more common.

The spaces you add in the reference template is uneeded, it does not affect the legibility of the displayed text in the article, it only serves to unnecessarily clutter the edit space. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See here

"For web-only sources with no publication date you should include a "Retrieved" date instead, in case the webpage changes in the future. For example: Retrieved 2008-07-15."

from Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thats what I have done. 70.137.141.29 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see where APA style is common if you are no shrink. This is chemistry, not head plumbing. 70.137.141.29 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It has a most recently updated date, I use both. If you'd like, I'll ask the Wikipedia Chemistry Project whether they want to change their unspoken referencing policy. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that the wiki editor cannot be a clairvoyant, so we give a s**** for unspoken policies. We follow the book. Don't do that again, there are no "unspoken policies". 70.137.141.29 (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to have a problem? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What problem? Stay on topic, follow rules. No "unspoken policies". 70.137.141.29 (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just passing, and saw this discussion. I'm not quite sure what you are disagreeing over, but have you seen this page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates? Wikipedia's own style guide is pretty clear on how dates should be written. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref desk

Hi, I've just removed your response to the ref desk question about removing moles. You recommended a particular medical treatment - that is definitely medical advice, which we don't allow. --Tango (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyanogen Synonyms

How about pubMed? - http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=9999&loc=ec_rcs#x395 JSR (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, only peer reviewed sources are allowed for synonyms.

References

The rollback on the references on the Cyanogen page is getting to be a bit ridiculous. Please note that you left one referenced to the same source that you rolled back on the others. The synonyms are all good names, the list in the ChemBox does not contain anything that is commercial or even iffy, and are names that have been used to describe the compound in years past. This same list of synonyms is found on PubChem, and can be verified against common sense to determine that they reasonably describe cyanogen. JSR (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I left one, because I forgot to add it when I updated the chembox previously. Your reasoning behind the remaining synonyms is not accepted by the Project. I used the same reasoning for another case and was refused. Sorry, but we are both limited by the same system. Try Scifinder, Merck Index, journals, etc. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Allowed sources

Do you have a list of allowed sources? If so, please direct me there. N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)methyl amine is a definitely good synonym. JSR (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a list, the "list" was constructed through a dispersed debate. The list includes peer reviewed journals, the list of unallowed sources is actually larger and better established. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So, where is the list of unallowed sources?JSR (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have that either, I have to decide on a case by case basis. I'm given guidelines: no chemical vendors, and no depositor supplied synonyms. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of references to Sigma-Aldrich in Wikipedia. There are dozens of references to miscellaneous MSDS's by various vendors. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.JSR (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm refering specifically to the sourcing of chemical synonyms. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then have a good time. I'm a lot tired of this process.JSR (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

At least, it's not my fault or my rules. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

2-Methyl-2-butanol Partition constant

You appear to have added several physical properties to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2-Methyl-2-butanol&oldid=460284204

Do you have a source for the log P value?

I noted on that article's talk page:

Several other sources report this value as 0.89, (as opposed to 1.095 which is what Plasmic Physics added)

http://logkow.cisti.nrc.ca/logkow/display?OID=1207

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~O4XY4V:1:owpc ScottHW (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ChEMBL Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox edits

Just a sequence of edits:

If you would have bothered, you would have seen that that is common knowledge (and probably does not even need a reference, anyone using common sense would not bother challenging that), or if you would have bothered, you would be able to find a reference yourself. And that goes for many of your edits - requesting a reference for the abbreviation 'EDTA', giving a reference for the name 'pentane' (to pubchem, of all places!). Elephants are grey, it is unreferenced, and it would be utterly silly to challenge the statement or to provide a reference for it.

More at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#What is going on in the chemboxes.3F.

So to make life simple for you, I suggest:

You either add data,
Or you challenge data that someone else added if you think it needs challenging (but use common sense),
Or you reference data that someone else challenged,
Or you remove the request for citation that someone else added you think it is common knowledge (again, use common sense),
Or you remove the data with a request for citation, but only if you were not the editor to challenge it, ánd you were not the editor who added the data in the first place. But first you either try to reference is, or you consider it is common knowledge.

You do not do any combination of these 5 statements, read them as a mathematically exclusive or ('XOR'). I would also suggest that you re-add all the data that you first added (with a citation needed tag), and later removed again - but this time just add the data - you damaged Wikipedia in those edits above. Happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I only remove synonyms that are left unreferenced after three months, which is a sufficient time for other users to add a reference. I don't consider it my responsibility to reference synonyms added by other users. Just because something is common knowledge does not mean that it is implicitly correct. Pentane is referenced as a current "IUPAC systematic name", not just any name. "Elephants are grey" does not apply here, that statement cannot be challenged. "As straight as an arrow" is common knowledge, but is can be challenged, and has been demonstrated to be false. PubChem is suitable asa reference for systematic/iupac names. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A) ~~No, you do not, see the three diffs above - you add them with a {{citation needed}}, and~~ you retag them, and you remove them.

B) It is also not your responsibility to tag them, nor to remove them. If they are challenged for 3 months, and you don't bother to find the references, then leave them

C) Yes, you are right - but that also does not mean that it is in need of a reference.

D) Yes, 'IUPAC systematic name' - but for common knowledge it does not need a reference, and especially not to PubChem.

E) Of course the statement that elephants are grey can be challenged, but no-one with common sense would, it is common knowledge.

F) No, PubChem is not a suitable reference for that.

I again suggest that you follow the 5 points above - either you add, or you challenge, or you reference, or you remove - but not, ever, all of them - even after 3 months, not even after 5 years - this is a collaborative project, let data addition, challenging and removal be done by different people. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on WT:CHEM, but the removal of all the synonyms and abbreviations in the PMDTA case are plainly very, very counterproductive, and damaging. References can be supplied, and IMHO most are absolutely not needed (see also the WT:CHEM discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I will not remove unsourced synonyms. I am not familiar chemical abbreviations or synonyms. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is PubChem not a suitable source for that? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

[3]: "Chemical names shown in PubChem Compound records are a composite derived from all linked substances, with default ranking of names by weighted frequency of use". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not using the synonym section, I'm using the Identification section. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And where do they get that data from? And the FAQ does not state whether it is the identification data or the synonyms that they derive the name for. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That name is automatically generated using an algorithm which almost always follows the IUPAC algorithm, which is why I compare the two. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PlasmaPhysics, please ask for help or advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. This way we can get some consensus before you make decisions. Can you do that? Surely you have noticed that you are the focus of a lot of concern for many years, so please let us help you.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Plasmic Phycics, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#What_is_going_on_in_the_chemboxes.3F, could you please try and get the names back into the articles where you removed them as unsourced. I am afraid that you have removed a lot of information which should be restored. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be a huge task that could take weeks. I don't keep a record of removed names, I only keep a record of articles that I have finished working on. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have deadlines - and we have Special:Contributions/Plasmic Physics. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to search as far back as a whole year's worth of edits to find all related removals. That link doesn't really help, I'll have to manually check the edit history of each individual article, for every article. I haven't counted them yet, but there could be hundreds of them. Of course that's just half the effort, I still have to reinsert the names. I will talk later, it's late/early. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you expect other users to do it for you? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. I made those edits in good faith. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it

If you do not know the compounds to be filled into the box, then dont add them! its easy. IMHO, it is wreckless to add misinformation into the ChemBox with the expectation that others cleanup for you. This is the reason for my recent reversions. Take out the dubious information before updating the ChemBox! This is one of the central requests coming to you from the community. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the misinformation? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All information is double-checked before addition. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that either your source or your transcription from it is flawed. You inserted a SMILES string into N-Acetylaspartylglutamic acid that said it contained an aromatic ring. Please immediately stop using whatever source/method you have been using as it is not giving correct information. DMacks (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple copy error, everyone makes the occational mistake. Are you sure that you understand SMILES as well as you ought to? Even though it was the wrong SMILES. it contained no aromatic rings. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lower-case letters are aromatic. And H is generally not specified (although it's not "forbidden", it's not normal, and again suggests you're using a buggy system to generate what is supposed to be a universally-usable value. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it's not aromatic. Have you actually tried to render it? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The goal of wikipedia is not to write nonsense that might happen to work in some contexts or try to bend the rules for machine-use data. You should know better than that after years of warnings about inserting things that you derive manually using one set of rules that you happen to like when it's against standard usage in the field. I'm not going to respond further here, you're already at ANI for long-term disruption/etc. DMacks (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not writting nonsense. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding fact tags to chemical infoboxes

Your practice of adding fact tags like those is being discussed at WT:CHEM#What is going on in the chemboxes?, where your edits have been described as damaging articles, and also at WT:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs. Please note that you shouldn't make edits that a fair number of people see as controversial, until the discussion is finished. You are of course welcome to participate.

It would also be helpful if you at least had a rough look at the articles you are editing; the name "Argireline" that you have fact-tagged occurs in both sources, in one of them even in the title. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble opening the article. However, it is not enough to simply occur in a source, it must be explicitly associated with the substance. You are sourcing the statement: "ABC is another name for DEF." Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, you change IUPACName to PIN, while removing all the stereo-chemistry information from the compound. For as far as I can see, this is a piece of peptide, which hence is the optically pure material that is mentioned there (and that is the one actually shown in the images). You change the name, and you immediately request a citation for that name, which is, with PIN by definition, original research by yourself based on rules which are incomplete. You ask in the reference "Is this the prefered IUPAC name? If not, move to OtherNames" - No, it is impossibly the preferred IUPAC name, so you could have put it in othernames by yourself. But of course, you already decided to remove the IUPAC name.

You leave the ChemSpiderID as is, but add a text to show which isomer it is (while you removed that from the IUPAC/PIN-name, but add as a first pubchem the racemate. The page is throughout talking about the chiral compound, that should be the first pubchem.

Then you ask for a citation for the other name Argireline (which can be reference, and which is referenced) where that is referenced in the text that it is a genuine other name (you ask for 'Is this a genuine, non-proprietary name' - it is a genuine other name, that is enough).

Same goes for some other edits you recently performed.

Do we really have to escalate this to you being banned from performing ANY edits to transclusions of {{drugbox}} and {{chembox}}? Or can you agree that you will leave identifiers and names/othernames all alone except for restoring data (to their originals) that you removed before. Above, you mention you don't have time to repair the damage you did over the last years, but you do have time to damage more. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I presume that was the answer to this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that is completely unrelated. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why you would blank a large section of a chembox for no particular reason, I don't know; I just responded. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Plasmic Physics, as was said in the above thread: Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it. Bold, revert, discuss. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I already take great care not to load bad information, and I certainly don't expect others to correct it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the one diff I worked out above (or in more detail on AN/I) does not show that you take 'great care', and that you re-revert one of the other edits (and warning me of vandalism) does show that you have no intention to actually repair it. If you then say that you do not expect others to correct it, then the only conclusion left over is that you insist to have pages showing incorrect information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well for once, tell me what information is wrong. You keep accusing me, yet you insist on leaving no edit summaries, or being vague. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the analysis in the AN/I thread? Why did you remove the stereochemistry information from the name of a compound that certainly is the enantiomerically pure compound. Why challenge the name while it is thoroughly clear from the text that that is an other name of the compound. Do you see that there are a large number of editors who complain - it suggests that something has to change, if it were just one or two .. but until now I have to see an editor who is actually supporting your edits to a large number of parameters of the chem/drugboxes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

To genralise the article, which I fixed by the way.
Because just mentioning E=mc^2, does qualify a source for the statement: "Einstein discovered the relationship E=mc^2". Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It should not be generalised, it is about this one single specific enantiomer. No, but it is not 'just mentioning E=mc^2', they say that they are actually synthesising Argeriline... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That may be, but does it contain a statement of "Argeriline = Acetyl hexapeptide-3", or any identifier, like the CAS or similiar? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics. Thank you. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Chembox Removal

I notice you removed my very informative chembox on Aqua regia. May I ask why? Your rationale, "Chembox not appropriate for nonstoichiometric mixtures" is complete crap. A chembox for aqua regia exists on many other entries for this topic in other language.

Please put the chembox back. There is no need to delete someone's work which adds useful information to an article. I might add this is the kind of nonsense that's driving people away from Wikipedia. Stop being part of the problem. Drnathanfurious (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a decision by the Chem Project. They decided that it is not appropriate for mixtures to have a chembox. Talk to them. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? This is extremely pedantic. You've deleted useful encyclopedic information over a formatting issue. Stop. If you want to put the information somewhere else on the page, that's okay, but don't just remove it because it uses a particular template. Stop. Drnathanfurious (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You stated that I had misinformation in my chembox. Can you point out which information is incorrect, so that I may update it? Drnathanfurious (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the new discussion on WT:CHEM. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking on this page, but can't find what you are referencing exactly. If mixtures can't use a chembox, then I'll just enter it manually into a table that looks the same. I don't care if it's in an official chembox. The information is useful and should be included in the manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.34.217 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are missing an important point: most of the information is wrong. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnathanfurious (talk • contribs) 11:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, if you would bother to follow the link. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're helping! Drnathanfurious (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it again. It doesn't make sense to me to have chemboxes for non-stochiometric mixtures, because the precise properties will obviously change with the concentration of each component of the mixture. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I share that opinion, but the Chem Project has reversed their views on the matter, see Hydrochloric acid, and compare with Hydrogen chloride. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally it's not important that there be a chembox, but the physical properties of what you usually make in the lab are useful and should be included in some form. Drnathanfurious (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put it back, but with the caveat (in the notes) that it is only accurate if the volume ratio of HNO₃ to HCl is 1:3. Double sharp (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe we'll have a chembox for malt vinegar next. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Titanium tetrahydride sd3 hybridisation

Hello. I'm trying to find out more and improve the page for orbital hybridisation as well as any pages with the mention. This one seems strange, so I'd like to ask. Is Titanium tetrahydride really sd3 hybridised? and why not sp3 instead? Thanks.--Officer781 (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't confirm or deny that, it has been too long to do so from memory. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WP Chemicals in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chemicals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Noble-gas fluorides

In Fluoride#The periodic table of the binary fluorides, you assert that the noble-gas fluorides "do not exist", but several different xenon fluorides are well-known compounds, and kyrpton fluoride and something generally considered as radon fluoride also exist. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Note the insert above the legend. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I missed that. It's a pretty poor distinction then (seems like an arbitrary inclusion criterion rather than a good directory of the stated topic). DMacks (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? Constructive critisism would be appreciated. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is factually false to state that a compound that exists "does not exist". It could be tagged/color-coded for "hypervalent" or something else to make it clear that it does not fit the category for being listed. DMacks (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You also seem to have selected only one of many possible oxidation states for the transition-metal (and maybe f-block) elements. For example, we have articles about FeF₂ and UF₄ and VF₃ and many others. I'm not sure how your table will be able to account for them (I experimented with putting multiple ones in those element slots and it looked poor). DMacks (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I could change the legend name to "orthovalent does not exist"?

I based the table on the preexisting one in Binary compounds of hydrogen, in neither case is the table all inclusive. The non-main block hydrides include the highest classical hydride available. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)