User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 9 (End Nov 2010)

Hello Rifleman 82: I am looking for help with a chemical synthesis and wanted to talk to you. Can you email me? user liometopum. 8 December 2010. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman, I'm glad you're interested in hearing more about the campus ambassador program. You can find general information about the program at WP:Campus Ambassadors. You will be paired with a professor at Texas Southern University and help students in his class complete a "Wikipedia" assignment. This will include making an in-class presentation about Wikipedia, holding a lab period to introduce them to the basics of editing, and being available to answer questions from the students as they come up. If you are interested in applying or would like more information just let me know. Thanks! Pjthepiano (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PJ. Well... like I said, I'm still 2 hours away. I am willing to travel; I am quite sure I can hold a lab or two, and answer questions online, but I won't be able to travel every week in a semester, for example.

I am still interested, unless there is someone more suited geographically. Do you have someone in mind already for this person from Texas Southern University? Perhaps you can put me in touch, and we can discuss how well this will work? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to double check to be sure, but I think you can expect to need to actually travel to campus 3 or 4 times in a semester. If this seems possible for you then let me know. I'll let you know as soon as I can definitively answer that question. So far you are the only respondent from the Houston area, but we just put out the geonotice today so we expect some other responses to roll in. If you know of any Wikipedians closer to TSU feel free to send them my way. Thanks again. Pjthepiano (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three-four times over a semester is okay. Do let me know. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it turns out that we would probably need someone who could be on campus on a weekly basis. If this is possible for you let me know. If not, don't fret. You can still be involved in the Campus Ambassador program by helping to recruit professors at colleges closer to you, by holding Wikipedia events on those campuses, etc. If you're interested just shoot me an email at pjtabit@gmail.com for an application. Thanks! Pjthepiano (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose links to articles "On the crystal field in the modern solid-state theory" http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0504199 or http://www.actaphysica.eu/?q=node/35

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.14.139.58 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the Faradaic current stub. You changed the sentence 'the net faradaic current is the algebraic sum of all the faradaic currents flowing through the electrode or through an indicator' to 'the net faradaic current is the algebraic sum of all the faradaic currents flowing through the indicator electrode or working electrode'. The current may not necessarily be flowing through an electrode which is why the word indicator was used. I think it would be better if the definition was more general, what do you think? Originalwana (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your comments. Since the Gold Book was referenced, I was trying to make our definition in line with it. While it says "indicator" in the ref, that word is hyperlinked to "indicator electrode". As a chemist, the first thing which comes to mind by "indicator" is some sort of dye, so I was looked at the ref to understand it better. I'm no expert in electrochemistry, so please feel free to change it as you see fit. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the section order that the Chemistry project agreed upon seems fine for chemists, and is appropriate for chemicals that only occur in labs. But articles on certain substances that are important outside the lab --- like carbon monoxide, oxygen, water, nicotine, ethanol --- are much more likely to be read by non-chemists; and therefore should be organized according to their interests. In particular, the history, uses, health and environmental aspects of CO are far more important overall than the electronic structure and technical info on reactions and such.
Please note that WP articles do not "belong" to particular groups or projects. WP is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of independent technical manuals. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman,

I'm curious why you reverted my edit to the sodium sulfate page (I added a sentence about it being one of the byproducts of the reaction between baking soda and sulfuric acid). thanks. 207.55.20.68 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)trappem aka 207.55.118.60[reply]

While that is true, sodium sulfate is the byproduct of many reactions, and I don't see why this reaction is especially noteworthy. However, if you do have a reason for including this particular reaction, I am open to discussion. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. The reason I thought this particular reaction was of interest is because it is the reaction you get when you clean car battery terminals with baking soda. As this application is the one that more folks will actually have personal experience with, it seemed a worthwhile piece of information to include. For me, the natural question when performing this procedure is, "What are the byproducts I am creating?" It seems appropriate that Wikipedia should provide this answer. best regards, 207.55.20.237 (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) trappem[reply]

I'd say that this would be more relevant in the car battery than here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued help. Did you see this editor adding methanol solubility data? Seems ill-advised. Also if you get a chance, can you figure out why entries into the ChemBox for Prismane do not show. Again, thanks for your many efforts.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SF, I haven't seen Romney's contributions previously, but I have now. I have an inkling about what's going on from reading science blogs. You can take a look at Open_Notebook_Science_Challenge - they are trying to systematically collect solubility data of ... stuff. I agree with you that while aqueous solubility is often quoted in Ksp or g/mL in the chembox, solubility in organic solvents is usually stated as per CRC: insoluble, slight, soluble, very soluble. After all, there are too many, and referencing becomes a problem for a box intended to be concise. Lastly, while Wikipedia is often more responsive than traditional media to new and "hot" movements, I don't think we're here to promote the Open Notebook Science project this way.

As for the IUPAC name for prismane, you have to click on the "show" button for the IUPAC name to appear. That's a compromise some of our editors have decided on, since IUPAC names can be almost infinitely long, distorting the chembox. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re IUPAC name: dumb of me, I never thought to click "show."--Smokefoot (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wikifying the Callender-Hamilton bridge entry. Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Painstaker (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rifleman, could you please make so that the move protection for Ununbium will expire on the first of January 2010, as that is when the name change is going to be (or expected, rather) to be implemented, thanks 92.236.88.188 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rifleman, Interested to note the edit dates of liquid nitrogen being used for cooling computers , do you know who is credited with that invention and the exact date of invention ,if so could you let me know please Clayton Wyatt (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Wyatt (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't know, sorry. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks for reverting on my talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rifleman 82. You have new messages at Talk:Tetrafluoroammonium.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of National Council on Problem Gambling (United States), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: National Council on Problem Gambling (Singapore). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dear Rifleman 82. I cannot move 1,2-Propylene oxide back to its original name Propylene oxide because the latter name already exists (as a redirect). Could you please help me? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think Beetstra beat me to it. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. I was worried that we'd be stuck with a strange name for an important article. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have difficulty with the current chembox image? It looks weird, some sort of SVG error I believe. I'm going to dig out a nice PNG to replace it until it's fixed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add interwiki zh:草甘膦 to Glyphosate, thanks :) --Choij (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are a primary author of the myoglobin article. I have a question for you on the topic which may or may not be appropriate for inclusion: In a rare steak, the red juices are mostly myoglobion, right? Is it accurate to tell squeamish people that myoglobin is not blood? Could you answer via email: meathead@amazingribs.com Quedude (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm hardly the primary author for this article. In any case, I am a synthetic inorganic chemist, not a biochemist, so I am hardly an expert in this topic. Sorry I can't help you here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a special reason for giving an indef block to 203.78.12.21? We usually don't give such blocks to IP addresses (especially not the first time!), the block probably should have been over by now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's harsh esp. for an IP. I'll unblock now. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rifleman. The file above should have hexaldehyde as the product according to the reference. All three compounds have an extra carbon in them. Could you please fix it? Thank you. --Choij (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Choij, thanks for letting me know. I've fixed it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit removed? I merely added links to the individual halls of residences websites and NUS Society - which is a branch of NUS Alumni. --wkwloo (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a directory. Considering the number of daughter organizations NUS has, it would be impossible, impractical, and undesirable to list the websites of them all. Inline external links break the flow of text, and are jarring for the reader and for this case, I don't see a compelling need for these links. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree with you. While there are many departments, faculties, research institutes, etc... in NUS, some are more important than others and deserve external links. In this case here, the activities, structure and traditions in halls are not described in much detail. On the other hand, halls of residences constitute a very integral part of life in any university (as an ex-hall resident I can testify to that); hence, it makes sense to welcome the reader to click on the link and view more details in the respective hall's pages.

Another point to note, there are potentially many foreign visitors/students to NUS - and they would be interested to know details of the halls of residences that they would possibly be staying. This is an added boon. While yes, it is possible to google for them - then it would defeat the purpose of "external links" in Wikipedia entirely. --wkwloo (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But can't we have special stub pages for the halls of residences? Then people can expand on it. --Mohit Kanwal (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Transesterification of triglycerides.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Transesterification of triglycerides.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Transesterification of triglycerides.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear R-82 Sorry to trouble you with this, but I trust your judgment. A1 seems to think the reference I've added don't make sense. I've been adding much needed references to chemical articles related to apparatus/simple chemical purification processes. I think at least A1 could have done is to check with me before reverting my references. I'm not even sure he is a chemist. Adding references at the best of times is no fun (I think I'll give it a miss in the future!). If you feel that my references are not good then I'll accept it. - Quantockgoblin (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted this article recently and replaced the correct formulae of both enantiomers of this racemic drug by a formulae of a specific enantiomer. This specific enantiomer is only present in the active compound by 50%. Thus, I would like to ask you to reconsider this move. Thanks. --Jü (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you have temporarily blocked User:J4V4 for uncooperative editing. Just thought I would point out that this user has also done some borderline vandalistic edits, which he tries to hide by blanking his talk page every now and then so that the vandalism notices are not visible unless you go through the page history. I don't know what should be done in such a case, as this user has a long-term history of unilateral edits, sometimes helpful, sometimes not, which he refuses to discuss. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Thanks!—Tetracube (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tetracube

Indeed, his habit of blanking his talk page without ever having responded to other users' concerns was the main reason behind the temp block. Thanks for dropping by, I will continue to keep an eye there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created diphosphine (P2H4), which was previously a redirect to diphosphines. My plan is to replace all of the diphosphine links to "diphosphine ligand|diphosphine." If you think that I have made a mess, we could reverse engineer the process and start over again. Your advice and experience is very welcome. I'll check back later.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot, no problem. I've noticed your previous discussion with the diphosphine chemist and I have no objections. I'll help where I can. If you have something specific in mind, please let me know. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Can you help me sort out this, this and [1]?!? I clearly don't understand the whole story so I'll just wash my hands of all this and let you sort it out. If you don't mind. :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman 82

Thanks for getting the Strem info on Wiki. I am new to this medium. I am a Strem employee and we wanted to provide a bit more information that what was originally posted. I see that you have commented that it should not be an advert. Is there a happy medium where we can post more than what is currently up there? What is an appropriate length?

Kind Regards

Chemistry phd brown (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Chemistry phd brown[reply]

Hi there

Thanks for getting in touch. That you are a Strem employee should not preclude you from contributing to that article at all. In fact, you might have a better perspective. That said, if you intend to do extensive edits on this particular article, you may wish to mention that on your user page; you can look at User:Smokefoot for an example.

Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to two sets of principals: what an article should be (Wikipedia:Five pillars of Wikipedia), and what it should not be (WP:NOT in general, WP:NOTDIRECTORY in particular).

Thirdly, user communication is essential to this site, so please keep tabs on Talk:Strem Chemicals, because if someone has a suggestion or is unhappy with a recent change, they may put it here. What "works" determined in a consultative manner.

In short, there is no "appropriate length" for the article. It can be expanded in as much detail as desired, bearing in mind the above considerations. Do remember that personal knowledge needs to be backed up with citations. Hope this helps, happy editing! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing which you can do is to provide a few appropriate photographs. What I might suggest is

1. a photograph of your main office (I took that photo when I visited with User:Walkerma a few years ago. You might have something nicer)
2. a photograph of a few of your products, preferably something representative
3. a photograph of your facilities
4. your corporate logo

These pictures should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons: you can access it at http://commons.wikimedia.org/. Your username here should work there as well. Take note that only freely licensed images (items 1-3) are allowed there. There are a range of licenses permitted, please choose one which you & Strem can live with. I can give further advise if you need. Hope this helps! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman 82 I just added additional information to the Strem Chemicals website. Hope this information is not removed. Chemistry phd brown (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same information which you've attempted to add the last time. I'm not sure what's changed. I'll let it stand for a moment, but could you PLEASE read what I wrote above and see how it fits? Please bear in mind that Strem Chemicals is not designed to promote your company - it is designed to provide factual information about it. If it is nice information, even better. See WP:PEACOCK. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with your attitude towards my writing. If you revert one edition, please provide the reason accordingly--222.67.205.17 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you talking about? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to talk about this article. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman, I have the same question with a man above with IP 222.67.205.17. Can I have an even small comment why you reverted the edition in this link? --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(Copyright by YOUNG-IL CHEMICAL in Rep. of Korea)" is not appropriate or even accurate. It might be a trademark, but it is certainly not a copyright. In any case, it need not be mentioned. With regard to Acesulfame K, his edit was terribly written and introduces speculation backed up by non-authoritative source (http://www.holisticmed.com/acek/). An authoritative source would be something from the peer-reviewed literature, for example. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So could you please allow me to edit like "...and 'Epifume'"(Brand name in Korean market)? As well as a kind comment like "To help search webs related to Korea for the same product but with different brand name" will be added. / Your kind advice will be appreciated. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" ... and 'Epifume'" should be sufficient. If all the other brand names list their countries or markets, perhaps the mention of Korea is appropriate. But this is not the case. Wikipedia is not aimed at search engine optimization. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know that google results wikipedia link on the top all the times with any given keyword if it can find the title in wikipedia? Moreover, most times it gives small categorized subresults of the given keyword from wikipedia. Everybody wants to see wikipedia result first of all in search result. Not only google but also most major search engines are giving wiki result on top. What do you think Wikipedia is without search engines? Most contributors entered Wikipedia by googling. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I mean. I'm saying that promoting specific brands by attempting improving search engine rankings is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rifleman, Epifume of Young-il Chem. has nothing to do with brand promotion. Nowadays in Korea it's rather something to do with unmasking a conspiracy involved with government driven rice stock keeping policy using Epifume. Epifume is not something which can be sold in public in Korea. Only government authorities can use this chemical and Young-il Chem. is an exclusive supplier, though some are circulating through black market. Korean gov. hadn't announced its use of this chemical since 1997 until journalists urged in mid 2000s. /// In Korea, they call this "Epi-hyoom" because it's easier to pronounce "Epifume" in Korea. So it took an hour of web-searching for me to realise that it means "Epifume" and another hour to find out that "Epifume" is a brand name for the chemical product out of "Aluminium Phosphide" and Young-il Chem. is a kind of branch office of National Agricultural Cooperative Federation driven by Government. At last Wikipedia gave me great information on this chemical and I wished others not to waste time nor fail to find out its true origin. /// Can I create another Wiki title "Epifume" to put additional information such as manufacturer's name and other background knowledge? /// Regarding " ... and 'Epifume'", how'bout doing like "... and 'Epifume'(Korean market specific)." or "... and 'Epifume'(Korean market restricted)."? --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course, create the article Epifume and redirect it to aluminium phosphide by placing #REDIRECT [[aluminium phosphide]] in the article. If there is enough material to constitute an article about this particular brand of aluminium phosphide, you can by all means start an article there. I'm still not too keen on specifying Epifume (Korea) or similar. If you feel that strongly about it, perhaps you can bring it up on Talk:Aluminium phosphide. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Marker degradation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marker degradation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RM82, if I may ask you, why the revert to the Tamil text? Is there something I don't know? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm all ears to what light you can shed, thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must have clicked the wrong button as I was going through my watchlist. Sorry for that. I've restored the version before I clicked, but I have no idea as to your dispute. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the starting form of copper really be "CuO", or would be better as "Cu²⁺" or something including the tartrate ligand? The former doesn't seem technically correct, and as given, the reaction is not fully balanced. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DMacks... thanks for pointing it out. I stupidly replicated the original jpg image blindly without thinking about it... CuO should be a black solid.

File:Fehling test-temporary.png

This is just for discussion... I'll put L = tartarate in the final and label them with numbers for easy referencing in the text... but what do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved, yes. I'm still uncertain about the ligand...what is its actual binding mode, and protonation/ionic form in solution? The earlier reaction of its formation in the Fehling's solution article is definitely wrong (net charge is redundant with internal formal charges, and doesn't even match the total!), but I don't know which O bind, etc. DMacks (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I've been thinking that tartaric acid might chelate copper somewhat like EDTA does, but without any literature support that's simply speculation. I'm not even sure about the tartrate:copper stoichiometry. I think that the tartrate is important to keep copper in solution at alkaline pH, instead of getting Cu(OH)2 as a light blue precipitate. How about replacing it with a generic [L_nCu]²⁺ ? The coordination chemistry of copper is not quite important with regard to the redox reaction... --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always just said "it keeps it in a soluble form" and never looked any further either:) [L_nCu]²⁺ or [L_nCu²⁺] sounds like a good, um, solution. DMacks (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are all sorts of copper(II) tartrate complexes in solution, going right up to [Cu(tart)₆]¹⁰⁻ doi:10.1080/00032717208064332. The important point is to have a good excess of tartrate, as the salt copper(II) tartrate is only sparingly soluble in water (it forms a polymeric structure, doi:10.1080/00958970500148446): I believe this is why you have to prepare Fehling's solution fresh for each test, as it will precipitate copper(II) tartrate on standing. Copper(II) citrate is much more soluble – it forms a 1:1 complex, [Cu(cit)(OH)]²⁻ [2], without bridging ligands – and this is why Benedict's reagent can be stored as a single solution. Physchim62 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DMacks & PC. So that should be [L_nCu]^2-2n, then L = tartarate^2- (as an image, of course!). I can't draw it now, but I'll be able to do it tomorrow at work. What do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, I might's well prepare the corresponding image for Benedict's. Cu(cit)(OH)]2-, right?--Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To: Rifleman From: Howard

Rifleman,

Thanks for the comments.

I can go over the article to see what can be truncated.

There is the point that with literature oscillation over the years and Arthur Birch's never really giving up the "meta" mechanism, there tends to be some confusion in "popular" texts. For example, I noted that the Virtual Organic Text, which is on the web, only recently got the mechanism corrected.

Thus the historical aspect helps clarify things regarding what is really correct.

I need to delay a bit since I'm running a large Symposium in Pacifichem and have been kept really occupied with getting all the Abstracts read and analyzed and the two days of lectures organized and put into the (Scholar One) "Sessions" with detailed times. There is a deadline for this being done coming up shortly.

Howard E. Zimmerman 14:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

Sure, take your time. When I can find some, I'll give it a go too. There are certain stylistic issues which Wikipedia prefers. I understand it takes getting used to - I was new here once. Apart from that, perhaps you can give the content some thought. Perhaps you can order the article hierarchically, grouping by theme. The titles of the headers also seem a little dramatic for WP as well. Anyway, take your time, think about it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping work on this. Poke me if I can help. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rifleman.
Would you like to explain, why did you decided [3] that this image:

is better than this one:

File:Norbornadiene1.GIF

 ???
Krasss (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Your image is grainy because it is at a low resolution. The chemists at WP:CHEMISTRY have come up with guidelines for drawing chemical structures; considerations include having a sufficiently high resolution for it to be easily resized. Perhaps you can take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Structure_drawing? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you mentioned on Nitrate that ions don't get chemboxes, does that mean that Ammonium should have it's chembox removed too?

Also, out of curiosity, why is it that ions don't get chemboxes. I originally went to the Nitrate page to look up it's Molar mass and was quite annoyed that it didn't have a chembox that I could quickly look at and find the relevant information. Instead I had to read through the article to find it. It just seems to me to be inconsistent to not have them. Loserpenguin15 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think it is a long-standing convention that only chemical compounds, either real or postulated, get boxes. There was talk for some time about an ion box but not much work is being done toward that. You can pop by WP:CHEMISTRY to ask if you like. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the decision to exclude ions from having chemboxes is a little arbitrary. IMHO notable ions like ammonium, hydronium, etc., ought to have chemboxes (suitably modified, of course) to summarize common attributes, so that such data are available at-a-glance instead of being embedded in unwieldy text.—Tetracube (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that all ions should get a box. Just that the Chembox in its current iteration is probably not the one for it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quadricyclane, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben and I are reverting a non-responsive set of anonymous editors on arsenic trichloride. I have tried to make contact, but the situation is now a game for them, I guess. You might have some options, but one would be to limit editing of this article to registered users for a while, until this issue blows over.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've semiprotected for a while. Let's see how it goes. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Phenol red - acid base equilibria - 2.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed , thanks . I also added {{information}} so that it can go to Commons.

The reason for needing a seperate source, is so that it doesn't got randomly deleted when it gets moved over to commons.

I strongly advise you to update any similar diagrams you may have uploaded or find :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Are really needed double brackets on these chemical compounds? Are simple brackets incorrect? I mean, double brackets are usually reserved for wikilinks and, if not absolutely necessary, they should be avoided. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. Single brackets are right. I was using a semi-automated tool (AWB) which incorrectly thought that they were errors, and tried to "fix" them. I'm surprised that the problems have remained unfixed for 3 years. Once again, very sorry. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman. You have previously been involved in the discussion about the spelling of the name of this article. The user who feels so passionately about the issue has now proposed renaming the article again. The discussion is at Talk:Aluminium borohydride#Requested move. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Seems to be fine for now, but I'll keep an eye out. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman- I noticed you removed a single stub tag I had on some chemical compound. The article really does seem to be a stub, as it is very short and contains little encyclopedic content. However, as you are into organic chemistry, I will defer to your judgment that all relevant information has been presented on whatever it is (it's the only one you rescinded the stub tag on from me). Thanks for the note :) Cesium 133 (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called an inorganic compound in the beginning? I thought that it would be an organometallic compound. Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organometallic compounds are part of the larger set of inorganic compounds. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC) On thinking about the article specifically, this compound is not organometallic because it doesn't contain a C-M bond. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit conflict. Great job by the way. I think we addressed some big gaps in the article. The reduction of iron oxides to Fe is too complicated for me to resolve at present.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, always a pleasure. Do take a look at the "reactions" section - where would you like to put it? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get around to editing the reaction section today or tomorrow AM. From the industrial perspective, the big ones are HX + Fe and FeOx, esp sulfuric (pickling). Solubility info for ferric vs ferrous is notable. CO rxn. BTW, Haber-Bosch and Fischer-Tropsch are quite efficient processes, there is no serious effort to displace these technologies, I dont think.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will leave that section to you. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to work on reaction, since you wrote such a nice section on the compounds. I was simply trying to avoid edit conflicts. Anyway, I cant do much until tomorrow. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand your constraints. I don't have much to add about "reactions", but Fe metal does indeed react with CO. My mistake. I've found a paper which mentions FeI3.I can imagine that like the hypothetical cupric iodide, the iodide anion is sufficiently reducing that it can't coexist with the oxidizing Fe(III), but let's see what it says. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the paper, no FeI3. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for interrupting, but isn't the silver(I) cation able to oxidize iodide ion to elemental iodine? It can exist, even though it isn't stable. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AgI exists. All the silver halides exist, but decompose in light. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting my file. I didn't realize it violated copyright rules. I'll remember to check next time I upload. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rifleman 82. You have new messages at Chemicalinterest's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caution is advised when dealing with the literature on late metal oxides/hydroxides (Au, Ag, Pd, Pt). Org Syn might be a great source, but the inorganic chemistry described by organic chemists is often laughable. On this topic, one theme that needs addressing is the Au(OH)3-Au2O3 aspect in gold(III) chloride. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SF, thanks for the note. Please edit my contributions as you see fit. Do you have any other comments?

I'm not familiar with gold chemistry, but I'll go take a look.

I was going to ping you ... can you please take a look at Cyclopentadienyl allyl palladium? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought since you did the AuCl(SMe2) that you might know the basic Au chem. In any case, sorry to snap at you about PdO. You will eventually discover that the fancy things like M-X-PR3 and M-X-SR2 complexes are really nailed, but so-called "simple" cmpds like binary oxides and esp so-called hydrated oxides are both rich in applications and avoided by researchers. Anyway, if you look at Ag2O, MnO2, and NiO etc, these are often described in oversimplified manner. One tip-off is when a material must be freshly prepared in order to be "active".

CpPd(allyl) was written by a very inexperienced author and ripe for upgrading.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Au is not my thing, that was just something I might want to try. I found it easy to write the article after finding the prep. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you put a bunch of edits into copper chloride. The one you reverted about CuSO₄ and NaCl was my research. I added it many months ago (one of my first edits) before I knew about WP:NOR. Thanks for the edits. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, take a look at this. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Don't forget your PPE. An apron or something you can use as a first barrier against spills. Safety glasses are essential ($5-20 a pair). Nitrile gloves ($6 a box?). Remember to wear closed-toed shoes, preferably leather, to prevent injury from dripping corrosives. Where potentially toxic fumes or vapors are produced, work outside! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I sometimes work outside if I am doing a reaction involving bleach and ammonia, for example. But for some fumes I just turn on the air purifier, which we have because my family has allergies. (I am only 16 years 0 days old by the way). I have some rickety safety glasses in a science kit, but I normally use the glasses that distort light to make things clearer (don't have good vision). Gloves I don't use. I occasionally get small drops of 12M HCl on my hands, which sting. I just wash it off with the blue spray bottle. But you're right, I don't have enough safety for big spills. I generally use just eyedropper full amounts of chemicals.

The only chemical from a chemical supply company was copper(II) sulfate. The rest were household chemicals or made from household chemicals.

If you would like to hear more rambling and ranting, place a talkback template on my page. Thank you. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman the fact tag on the iron article was there to show that the whole carbonyl section needed a review or good book as a reference. I looked for a good book on carbonyl chemistry but the only thing I found was to far into special things. My good old ho-wi might be the solution. --Stone (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the note. I'll reinstate the fact tag if you've not already done so. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have ho-wi, so I went with Greenwood & Earnshaw instead! ;) Physchim62 (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I must get my hands on one of them... --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I would have appreciated some warning, or renaming the file. Now I don't even know what it was. It would have made more sense to ask me to update the file rather than unilaterally deleting it. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can tell me a target file name, I'll re-upload it there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in the copper(II) chloride article you added a caption for the picture. Did you reverse the left and right on purpose? I have changed them. Thank you. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove reference to Hunt brothers "manipulation" in article about Silver. I explained it on discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.53.147.141 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been meaning to ask for your opinion here → User talk:Plastikspork#218.186.0.0/16 rangeblock. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to me, I understand that you have become another "Most Interested Person" on that article page. Note that AK76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not really even trying to read through the references he had provided, especially this ref which states very clearly that: "Incidentally, the Tavor shares many similarities with the SAR-21."; that said, I wonder how far he can push his fringe theory so far into the article page. Personally, his behaviour smells like trolling and WP:CPUSH (see his edits under the IP on the article prior to his registering), but that's just me. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added {{lower case title}} to M-Toluic acid, and thought, this might be something that needs to be done for all p-, m-, o-, d-, l-, etc. etc. titles. Those are going to be fun to find, but would it be something for User:Chem-awb to do that? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was upgraded .. this is what should be done to all of them .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:DISPLAYTITLE works better in these situations because it allows both lowercase and italics. I think I have already done it for most articles that start with various chemical prefixes. ChemNerd (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChemNerd's way doesn't seem to work fine... If you write the code, I'll run chem-awb? Though I'm in the midst of relocating, so that might take a while. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using DISPLAYTITLE to get titles that start with lowercase and contain italics seems to work fine for me. Can you specify what problem you see with it? Thanks. ChemNerd (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I must have made a mistake. Looks perfect now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Fehling test-temporary.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering what is the problem with my edit on Nonoxynol-9, you left no notes. The structure is incorrect, otherwise my other changes might be judgement calls. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry about that. You know I usually leave notes at the edit summary. I must have clicked a wrong button. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over on Talk:Sodium fluoroacetate. I had not noticed the accidental deletion, and appreciate your correction. The error may have happened during a browser crash that occurred while editing, and automatic recovery of lost text during restart. Thanks, Gzuufy (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, they happen occasionally. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any alternative infobox availeble to chembox for ions? If none I could copy the template:chembox to template:ionbox, but usually we try to generalise where possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is trivial to copy chembox onto ionbox, but that's not really the point. Ions have no physical properties (boiling point, melting point, etc.) since they don't really exist in bulk form. You can't buy 1 kilo of sodium ions from Sigma Aldrich for example. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman, thanks a lot for this cleanup work, which I just spotted. The old-style citation is my fault - though the article pre-dates the inline citation templates! It takes me ages to do that sort of work, so I really appreciate you taking it on. Anyway, many thanks, and good luck, Walkerma (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, it's my pleasure! :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman, I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to draw for me the structure (E)-4-oxohexadec-2-enoic acid; the structure (of the sodium salt) is shown here. It's intended for use in the article Hygrophorus eburneus, which I hope to bring to GA status. Thanks for considering my request. Sasata (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Give me a few hours. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is okay. Let me know if you need anything else. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks so much! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through your article, and I started working on a picture with all the γ-oxocrotonatic you mentioned, with the γ-oxocrotonic acid moieties colored blue. What do you think? Would it be helpful? It's taking some time, but apart from that, the naming scheme you are using is systematic so I don't need an article to determine the structures. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fantastic! Sasata (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the structure of (2E, 11Z)-4-oxooetadeca-2,1 I-dienoic acid please? I think there is a typo there somewhere... it should be 2E,11Z-4-oxooctadeca-2,11-dienoic acid? Poor OCR-ing? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just poor typing on my part. Your name is correct. Sasata (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I'll make a note of that in the article. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the neutronium section in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. I'm trying to recruit knowledgeable opinions--Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at it?--Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, but I have no comments yet. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

according to Pubchem (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), the real IUPAC name is propan-2-one, NOT propanone. I don't know which one is correct, but please check it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.229.22 (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I was wondering if the link to BBC would be better to Radio 4? Rich Farmbrough, 05:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think that would be better. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You reverted the infobox back to ferrate(III). Are you sure? By my reckoning it's ferrate(II), and that's what the article says as well. I know NO compounds are difficult, but I've changed it back. Feel free to revert again if I'm wrong. Chris (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Nett charge is -2; we have five cyanides so -5. That requires a Fe(III). Or are you thinking of NO as NO+? Then Fe(II) would be right. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I just read the text. Thanks for reminding me, you are right. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're also in Singapore? I am too. Do you know of any sources of chemicals (willing to sell to individuals) in Singapore? Many thanks. YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 07:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in Singapore anymore. Sorry, can't help you. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rifleman. You posted that compounds I placed were not similar. What do you mean and what are you referring to? Thanks. YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 09:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, Smuconlaw is for educational assignments. ArbCom has been informed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Finishing up with your PhD soon I hope? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very soon, hopefully ... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of understand where you are coming from eliminating chemical infoboxes from non-chemicals, however it's resulting in a pretty big loss of information from those articles. For example, the box you removed from Methyl left the article with no image, no mention of its IUPAC designation, etc. I think you should reconsider that kind of removal. Gigs (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. The chembox was designed for compounds, not fragments. Longstanding convention here has been to reserve a chembox solely for compounds. That said, I should have left the picture in. We have on-and-off been talking about an ion box as a separate box, or a module for a fragment, but nothing much has come out of it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

162.112.224.4 is vandalizing his talk page. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry, I was away and couldn't respond. I think the user has stopped. Let me or anyone else know if he starts again. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note at Talk:Ellman's reagent. Thanks--and I left you a question there. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was browsing the chemical elements and noticed Copernicium seemed to be move-protected, but did not have a move-protect icon. Looking at the history I see you move-protected it during the Copernicium/Ununbium move battle a while back. I assume that battle has subsided, can it be unprotected now? (No, I don't intend to move it.) If not, can the icon be added to indicate that it's move-protected? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The icon is informative but not mandatory for move-protected articles. The matter is settled so I suppose we don't need to move it anymore, but I guess I could take off the protection anyway because our policy is that such protection should generally be temporary. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: after this discussion I put some of the elements on my watchlist, and I happened to notice someone renamed one today: diff 28bytes (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm a little busy, so I'll throw the question to WT:ELEMENTS. I'm quite sure that the name should end with -ium, but a cursory search of IUPAC documents doesn't give the definitive rules. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a reply to your suggestion; you can go there with the link above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YOSF0113 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, no element compounds uses oxidation state so it's done for unification. Also, 4 states (it has more; but only 4 appear on the template) aren't that much. But if there were 10 of them, I'd still vote for unification and not separating states --R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman, hope you don't mind me pestering you for images of fungal compounds, because I have another request :) I'd love to have a pic of 6-hydroxypterulone for the article Mycena galopus, which I'm trying to bring to GA-status. You can find it here Thanks! Sasata (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Much obliged. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you know more about this, perhaps you can improve the description on commons. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this compound worth a whole article? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but it would fit nicely into an article about pterulone, which has had a few papers written about it. If you want to draw a structure for that, I'd whip up a stub for it (and probably use it later when I work on the Pterula article). Sasata (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which structures exactly do you want? I can draw what we have on page 109, but is it "complete"? Or are there more reported since? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think just the structure of pterulone would be fine for now, I can bug you again later when I expand the article sufficiently to justify more images. Sasata (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you have 6 members at least for the class of pterulones. Which do you want again? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the base compound pterulone, i.e. like what you've drawn already but without the 6-hydroxy. Sasata (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go!

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help! I will start the pterulone article tomorrow (getting late here...) Cheers, Sasata (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Singapore Pools.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just after you removed the equation I also noticed its oddness. As I have no access to original sources, I can match the equation with the text which to me seems quit wel possible, but I am not able to check it for correctness. So, if you are, I would be pleased, otherwise, at least remove a few lines more, as they are not mking sense either at the moment. Thanks. T.vanschaik (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I only looked at that line a little more closely. I'll take a look again. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference at Talk:Aspartame. I just finished reading the relevant sections. (I'm going to read the rest at some point.) I think I know where I want to take the synthesis section next. I was wondering if you had a recommended chem-editor, preferably free since I don't expect to use it much.Novangelis (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChemSketch is what I use. It's free, and I like it more than ChemDraw. If you don't do it much, drop me a note and I'll draw what you need. There is a guide Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Structure_drawing, but the short version is, stick with ACS settings (proportions, line thickness, fonts and font sizes), and export to PNG at the maximum resolution. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But yeah... if it's too much trouble, just drop me a note. Drawing structures is one of the things I do for a living, and I can do it quite quickly. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll give it a try, myself. I'm going to try to build a few illustrations, starting with some to show the difference between α and β forms of aspartame for the lay reader. It wouldn't hurt me to brush up on my skills. I wouldn't be doing it often, but if I get in practice, I'd be doing it more.Novangelis (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]