User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 7 (End Nov 2008)

WP:SUP

Thanks, I had not seen this site, which has useful advice. We're pretty careful though and I do not emphasize WE-formatting rules much. I think we added 50-60 articles in 2008.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also. I haven't ever assigned WP work to students, but I often refer in talks to those who do. I may also assign it at some point in the future. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Hamilton

Actually, it was my girlfriend's article, the teacher was very misguiding, I wrote alot more for another wiki (ED :-D), but i wikied up alot of other peoples articles (essays) and I told them that they would be deleted or merged. Professor Hamilton's idea, although thoughtful, was very ill conceived as he is not familiar with the MoS. I am not in the class or else I would have chomping at the bit as he was handing out his suggested topics, which were mostly news article, not encyclopedic material. Tekjester (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

There has been an allegation of misusing rollback features against me, and my rollback right was retracted. I have provided a clarfication here. Please, take a look. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified my position a bit more. Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at WT:RFA

"Actually, it's possible to change one's vote by striking it and revoting/commenting". The commentators understand that. ;) They're referring to people they supported and then saw their admin actions and had "supporter's remorse". Enigma message 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Thanks. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the class

Should we be listed which articles have been AfD'd/speedied/redirected? I was shying away from that, since it just seemed awfully depressing. Thoughts? --Bfigura (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should. I doubt we'll catch everything though, since more than one admin handled the closings. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can figure out which ones have been through AfD, if that's what you mean. I have sort of a record in my contributions. Enigma message 05:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is cake. Redirected we know. Speedied vs. PRODd we can also tell from the page's log. I could tell you which ones went to AfD. Enigma message 05:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflictx2) Would it be a tad cruel to create a table listing original article title, uploader, new article title, fate - redirected, speedied, afd'ed, kept? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be considered cruel, I guess, but I think it would be helpful to observers and to the students themselves. Enigma message 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Just so long as we don't throw a ☒N next to every deleted article, I don't think it's excessively mean. --Bfigura (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

Hi Rifleman82. Per this conversation about User:Aditya Kabir I have restored the rollback tool. I noted that you explicitly stated that you were not adverse to this, if the editor demonstrated better understanding of the tool. I believe they have done this. I thought I'd better pop by out of courtesy to advise you, and hope that you are okay with my actions. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Wasn't sure what time you were likely to be back online, so I went ahead and gave him the tool back. Hopefully I've made a good decision, and I thank you for being flexible here. Cheers! Pedro :  Chat  10:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries

Your early close of this AFD seems inappropriate for several reasons including:

1. there is too much heat and emotion about these student articles currently which is distorting comment.

2. my Keep opinion was substantial, being backed by policy and a citation and so there was not unanimity.

To save us the aggravation of DRV please can you either usefy this article so that I may recreate it under a better title. Otherwise, please reverse your action. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I apologize. In retrospect, I believe I was hasty in closing this AFD. I'll reopen it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this prompt response. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:WP:RFPP

Hey I just noticed you protected User:Soxred93/sig. I have unprotected the page per Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion_of_templates. These types of pages are not to be used to transclude one's signature, and thus the page shouldn't be protected or used at all. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benzamil

No worries :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comment

Hi, can you please remove a threating comment from my talk page issued by an uncivil user Editorofthewiki for a silly reason. I don't want to continue discussion with him, but whenever I tried to remove the message, he edit-warred with me. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at WP:AN/I. Concensus so far has been that it is actually Otelemur at fault in this dispute. I simply love how he calls me a troll in his talk page history and at the page linked above. [sarcastic] I am trying to remain as civil as possible in such situations but Otelemur's canvassing, edit warring, and misuse of his rollback is getting on my nerves. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not misused rollback. I only used it to revert this user in my talk page. Misuse comes if I use it in articles. And I now reverting his comments from my talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also this user's behaviour is nothing but trolling. Please see his comments on my talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's on AN/I, keep it there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare in Taiwan

I've accidentally edit conflicted you, and I think some of the information you inserted has gone. Sorry about that. D.M.N. (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. In any case, it's better than what it was before! D.M.N. (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Gas Price Crisis

I think we've both been following this class's problems--I suggest that the snow close was not a good idea, because this is a matter where we wantto show there was every consideration--and one responsible editor had argued for a merge, and so will I. consider reverting it, please. DGG (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were not able to comment at that AFD prior to closure. At that point, the comments were overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. The article as it stood, if kept, would have to be ripped apart and put back together. Among others its title would have to be changed (MOS capitalization, ill-defined "recent"). The many other problems listed at AFD would also have to be fixed. In the end, it would likely be a content fork of some of the existing articles already.
I do respect your opinion. However, AFD is clogged already, and I am reluctant to reopen the discussion on a relatively cut-and-dried issue. If there are other editors who think that the AFD has not run its full course (and I don't mean reopening the discussion for 25 more delete !votes), do ask them to drop a note here and I will reconsider. At the moment, if you do feel that the article should be re-opened to merge content into relevant articles, I would prefer to recreate the article as a subpage of WP:Global Economics. What do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think for the reasons given it should not have been snowed. These deletions are being watched from outside, and the full procedure should be followed. At one point I did all current deletions the first day, now I do every other day--and so do most people. The deletion policy says almost everything should run its full time. As for me, I have snow closed a few times, but I would certainly reopen after a single objection from a regular contributor. At this point I am discussing the procedure, rather than the article. This is not the place for a multi-party argument, so I intend taking it to deletion review if you will not reopen, and that will be even more of a nuisance for me and everyone. DGG (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I mentioned on your talk, I said I wasn't and won't be pigheaded about it. Since you feel strongly about it, I'll reopen it and let it run its course. Hope this helps. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple copyvio/COI edits

Hi, during my recent patrols, I encountered this user engaging in troll/sockpuppet-like behaviour on many of our SG-related articles despite repeated warnings given. Of much amusement, u may be interested to note this ego-centric user multiple BS claims & the high ratings he gave to those articles he created earlier. As such, I wld appreciate if u could check & take appropriate measures if necessary, so that the hard work of fellow SGpedians & the integrity of Wikipedia are not jeopardised further. Thank u. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I find it silly to list all his contributions like that (it's hard to keep track when you have a few thousand?), he's free to do so. If you disagree with the rating he has assigned, you can change it, as can anyone else.
I find it more amusing rather than disagreeing on his self rating instead. Anyway, experienced editors, esp the more vocal ones will disagreed & make the changes subsequently. The same goes to all my previous writeups to date, which I do not self rate them at all, but would let other folks to decide or trash it out like this previous example. Kindly note that at times, certain acts may be allowed or even legally right, but on moral grounds, it's questionable like in this case, to claim credit when it's not, esp mutiple misleading ones without any good conscience or remorse. Likewise in your profession, I dun think u would like if someone (including your superiors or seniors) claim publicly in a industry-wide presentation or reputable academic journal that the painstaking research u had done exclusively, was their very own work & enjoy the spotlight & accolades that follows. As in the Law if Karma, it's a matter of time that the truth will be discovered & therefore to bear the consequences of one's actions in one way or another then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each editor's contribution history is open for all to inspect. Like I said previously, it's dumb to list all your edits. And, it's even dumber to argue about them. What do you hope to achieve by threatening him to, among other things, have him blocked? You might find a sympathetic admin to block him on these grounds, I don't see how false or misleading claims of having edited a certain article will meet the criteria in WP:BLOCK. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rifleman, do look carefully at the context of my note, my first msg & subsequent replies on your talkpage earlier. Did I mentioned to u in anyway to take any SPECIFIC course of action on the user earlier? I believe u will exercise due diligence as ultimately it's your call to make on any appropriate follow-up actions. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what sort of sockpuppetry he is supposed to be engaged in. If you clarify, I can look into it.
Not hardcore yet, but may approach to become one next 'cos of his tone of edit, profile & recalcitrant ways. I believe fellow SGpedians wld not want to see the likes of individuals following similar foot steps like this sockpuppet, or this troll again, which resulted in much disruptions & painstaking cleanups in recent memory. As u actively spotlight on copyvio & its enforcement, I brought this case to your attention as I assumed that it was not on your 'radar' earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've never claimed to champion the cause of copyvio enforcement. I've looked through his edits, and I see no evidence of sockpupetry. If you do see any, you can show me the diffs and I can see what I can do. We will sort them out at the appropriate time. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the tone of your latest reply mentioned above & below, it's meaningless for me to highlight the diffs anymore. Time will show to make one learn to see the truth one day. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that those image copyright issues are settled. I've fixed the copyvio at Qifa Primary School. What other copyvios are there? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the one u did recently, most were settled due to vigorous follow-ups done by Dave1185 earlier. I'm a member of WP:FACT & a tough vandal fighter, I do take editors or even admins to task if nec during my patrols, but will not resort to bullying ways as mentioned by Itub nor do I share or condone the aggressive comments or acts made by Dave1185 on his userpage earlier. I spotted his acts during my patrol & left a note as an uninvolved party, so that the situation do not spiral out of hand between them. I'm aware of WP:BITE & the aspirations listed under the WP:5P too, but does my earlier mentioned note (under the edit summary of 'A friendly advice' here) or my recent edit history in any way interpretated as such? I'm highly amused by Itub's interest & comments (LOL) of my postings here, but likewise would advise Itub to read WP:AGF first before commenting on a bona fide CUV member in future, so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding or conflict. Thank u for your response. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your friendly advice seems neither friendly, nor advice. Seems more like a threat of a block. Do you expect me to watchlist all the Singapore-related articles simply because I'm a participant in WP:SG? I fix problems when they are brought to my attention, or when I come across them. I'm not apologetic about not having caught them earlier, because I simply did not see them previously. If that is what you are implying. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What have I implied other than to bring to your attention on this case & to clarify unfair allegations made on me by Itub earlier? Did I mentioned SPECIFICALLY that I'll take u or Itub to ArbCom earlier? I dunno what hit u today but I find your tone neither helpful nor constructive, esp one coming from an admin. Take a pause, reread & reflect. It's already worse to be lumped with someone else earlier when one is not as mentioned below & even worse to see such hot-headed out of context remarks coming from an admin whom I've highly regarded all these while! I've done what I need to do or say now, and I've no wish to continue this discussion further as I can see it's heading nowhere. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman, if I may comment since I had your talk page on my watchlist and was curious enough to look at User:Bossieboy's page. I find it odd that User:Aldwinteo comes complaining to you right after User:Dave1185 vandalized User:Bossieboy's page and inserted personal threats (and even worse, labeling them as minor edits!). And User:Aldwinteo happily joined this bullying at User_talk:Bossieboy#Be_humble. All because Bossieboy listed a couple of articles in his contributions list in his user page that are not in his edit history! That's ridiculous. First, his user page is nobody's business as long as it's within the user page guidelines, and second, it is quite possible that he edited those two articles anonymously, perhaps by accident, perhaps before he created his account, or perhaps for some other reason. I suggest that the parties involved read WP:BITE. --Itub (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itub, you're perfectly welcome to comment. I too saw those comments, and I wasn't impressed. For some reason, the Singaporean editors are very (unnecessarily and unjustifiably?) aggressive in WP. I deleted Dave's copyvio article at Sembawang Hot Springs twice too, so I guess he's not the one complaining about copyvio here.
With regard to Bossieboy (talk · contribs), listing down every single (even minor) edit is dumb. Arguing about it is even dumber.
Anyway, yes, Aldwinteo (talk · contribs) and Dave1185 (talk · contribs) should go take a look at WP:BITE. Thanks too for pointing it out to him/them. I was remiss in not doing that earlier. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hindsight, I find it's rather unconstructive & 'ungentlemanly' behaviour to criticise Dave1185 without his knowledge, as he was not given an opportunity to give an account of his actions here earlier. As such, I'll leave a note to allow him to respond rightfully. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... OK, as a completely uninvolved party, I really don't see any untoward behavior from Bossieboy, apart from what could simply be a case of the newbies, and I certainly don't see how his behavior in the diffs provided above constitutes trolling or evidence of sockpuppetry. This, on the other hand, was completely inappropriate, as were the first two messages in this thread. Just my 2 cents. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How convenient of you guys to leave me out of the loop, pertaining to some of these issues spoken behind my back, huh? Well, no matter... but here are a few points which I would like to clarify...
  1. Rifleman82, I don't give a rat-ass about what kind of admin you might be but let me just set you straight here. As Aldwinteo mentioned, "Sembawang Hot Springs (SHS)" is part of our historical heritage, I recreated it again only and only after I had taken the trouble to research it at Bras Basah NLB and I wrote it only once (not twice as claimed by you!), please get your eyes examined because I find it such a plausible excuse by you and I quote you: "I deleted Dave's copyvio article at Sembawang Hot Springs twice too, so I guess he's not the one complaining about copyvio here" when the actual fact is contrary to what I listed above, which is the reason behind recreating the same article but written in my own words. You chose to conveniently ignore my protest and blatantly deleted the whole article after your so-called close examination of that page because you felt that it was a near-verbatim copy of the original by NLB. BUT, had you gone down to NLB, you would would have known that NLB version contained quite a number of excerpts from Straits Times, WanBao and ZaoBao. Hence, I call you a blind admin for not spotting that and I quote myself: "talk about plagiarising, sheesh! " on my talkpage. Aldwinteo help recreated the same article again shortly thereafter and I don't see you batting an eyelid about his version? Which is in fact almost a near-verbatim version of the original NLB one but interjected by lots more references and images than what I had manage to gather previously.
  2. Having said that and read what you did on the article of "Qifa Primary School (QPS)" left me with one conclusion and that is you are wholeheartedly biased and double standard. Yes, I call you a wholeheartedly biased and double standard Admin. Why? Because if you could have so much of your free time to help re-edit "QPS", I don't see why you don't have the patience to help re-edit "SHS". My part on the "QPS" was pure and simple, tagging copyvio on those two images and the entire text uploaded by Bossieboy because of his apparent copy and paste form of creating that article. Kapish?
  3. And had you read through what I posted on the message page of Bossieboy, you would have known that I am personally very cheesed off by him because of his blatant disrespect for me by copying and paste almost all of what I wrote there directly into the page of West Coast, Singapore. Subsequently, I deleted them all and told him off to research for it properly and then rewrite it again. It was such a simple case but had he apologise then all was well but he didn't and how would you have expected me to treat him then? Normal newbies are curious and conscious of their actions and would not repeat their own mistakes but not this guy, so I treat him as a pariah.
  4. And to whom it might not concerned and not knowing how this piece of conversation came to be, please keep all your 5 cents or 2 cents worth of comments and cramp it up where the sun don't shine, this is not about you so don't make me come after your edits personally. In short, mind your own business.

I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If you disagree with my delete , take it to WP:Deletion review. There are mechanisms for handling this.
  2. I am not responsible for every article on my watchlist. I edit those which interest me. So do you. If you think that's double standards, take it to WP:ARBCOM
  3. Read WP:BITE.
  4. Read WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said before, I don't give a rat-ass about you. Like Aldwinteo, I strongly believe in the law of Karma, I said what I mean and mean what I said. You don't like it, too bad! I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template for basic chemical mechanisms

R-82, I noticed that you wrote a template for the deuterated solvents. I was wondering if it would be worth doing the same for basic chemical mechanisms i.e. SN1 SN2 E1 and E2 etc, as far as can tell, these reaction mechanisms are not very well linked together. All the best -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll write it in the morning. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I didn't write Template:List of NMR solvents, but I can write the one for basic mechanisms quite easily. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a start: Template:Reaction mechanisms. What am I missing? Let me know and I'll put it in! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good start, thanks - I'll let you know if I think of anything else - Quantockgoblin (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I got it into my head that you made the d-solvent template - however, you did a good job on the basic reaction mechs template - v.useful, thanks. I guess I should do my homework and figure how to make templates of my own! I think these templates could be used in a few more places, i.e a "reactive intermediate" template along the same lines would be useful - carbenes, nitrenes, radicals, carbocations, benzyne etc ... however, it looks like you might be busy with a big project of your own ... -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs on trial

Well, some of these have been around for a while and are certainly worth having (bacampicillin is one of those, I'd meant to create it myself). We've never actually established a minimum threshold for creating drug articles—I'm personally OK with anything in phase III, and having an assigned INN takes care of verifiability concerns :) Maybe I'm betraying a hint of inclusionism here... perhaps there should be further discussion on the matter? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's okay. I have no vested interest, and don't really care either way. The thought just struck me when I started doing the images. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

Somehow I and another editor have really butchered the naming and redirects for (MeO)4Si. Could you please rename this Tetramethyl orthosilicate. Sorry for the problems. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, Rifleman, but the article's been in my watchlist since I added the images to it—looks like the friendly competition continues! ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solder wick

You changed "Army Aircorp" to "[[Army Air Corps]]" in [[Solder wick]]. At the time, that was a link to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom). Did you mean that, did you mean United States Army Air Corps, or do you just not know?  Randall Bart   Talk  16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I changed it because it was clearly a typo, but I didn't know which it was. Hope this helps. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:LRT

Hi thanks for noticing. The full discussion is at Talk:Light Rail Transit (Singapore)#Correct_name?, where I have put forth the notion that if it was not possible to ascertain formal or common use from the sources we found, than the official name from the relevant authority should prevail, in this case the Land Transport Authority. As stated, I have found in both of their most recent published works, that the correct name is "Light Rapid Transit". oahiyeel, despite the evidence presented, has chosen not to agree, demanding to invite more comments (which he did not wait for either when he first iniated the renaming) and stalling the move request to have the name properly restored despite me allowing more than two weeks for discussions to happen. I hope you may assist to bring this issue to a conclusive close. Thanks in advance!--Huaiwei (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chem-awb suggestion

I was just noticing that there are quite a few chemicals articles in Category:Psychedelic phenethylamines that use an old-style infobox. Do you think you could use Chem-awb to update them to {{chembox new}} and tag the talk pages with {{chemicals}}? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chem-awb won't be able to convert the older-than-chembox (old) boxes, I'll fix them by hand over the next few days. It *can* add {{chemicals}} to it. I'll do that now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Tagging with {{chemicals}} would be good. I can help with manual conversion of infoboxes. But it just occurred to me ... perhaps getting input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants first would be best to make sure there are no objections there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a chemical property, and I don't see how any discussion could rationally be in favor of keeping these boxes when almost all other chemicals use chembox new... Same goes for {{Explosivebox}}. I am in favor of just going ahead. Unfortunately, the proponents of {{drugbox}} are less keen on change. In a few, I'll do an AWB run and identify those lacking a chembox. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants‎, but I don't anticipate any objection. I'm sure I've converted a few in the past without a problem. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, okay. Since you're here, do you have any opinion on moving pancuronium to pancuronium bromide? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at Talk:Pancuronium. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is now here.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the list. I'll probably get to some of them tomorrow. Shall we just cross off from the list as we go through them? -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's. We'll continue the discussion on pancuronium there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your mission (should you choose to accept it)

Hi. I probably shouldn't have chosen to accept my mission! But I did, and have left some comments at my talk page. Rather than replying there, I think that the best thing is for any further discussion of this issue to take place at WP:PUI. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Respiratory disease
Quaternary ammonium cation
Benzimidazole
Poise
Hydrobromic acid
Zenker's fixative
Mannheim process
Cyanic acid
Cadmium sulfide
Racemization
Scandium(III) oxide
Mineral acid
Boron trifluoride
Inorganic compounds by element
Phosphorus pentabromide
Potassium ferrocyanide
Coordination geometry
Tetramminecopper(II) sulfate
Potassium sodium tartrate
Cleanup
Borax
List of organic chemistry topics
Supercritical carbon dioxide
Merge
Steam reforming
Freeze distillation
2-Butoxyethanol
Add Sources
Ethylene oxide
Neutralization
Freebase
Wikify
Photoengraving
Transport in Singapore
Boo Koo
Expand
Directive 67/548/EEC
Melamine
Green computing

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benzalkonium chloride

Hi Rifleman. Can you change the subtitle of the chemical structure you drawed to "n = 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18"? There are no odd C-chains (see e.g. here, Table 1 on p. 4). Thanks. --Leyo 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added the reference for that to the article. --Leyo 17:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bromite

Yea! I found it out myself, but not before I did it wrong! Thanks --Stone (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aufbau Principle

Hi Rifleman 82!

Thanks for welcome note. I understand that you are the Administrator here.

I need to discuss Aufbau Principle article. There is one phrase there that seems confusing:

"Elemental copper should have 11 electrons in the outermost shell. But, its electronic configuration is [Ar].3d10.4s1. instead of [Ar].3d9.4s2. due to the greater stability of a half-filled or fully-filled orbital."

1. Elemental copper does have 11 electrons in the outermost shell in both cases listed:[Ar].3d10.4s1 and [Ar].3d9.4s2. I think it should say instead: Elemental copper should have 9 electrons in subshell 3d. But,...

2. It should also say: due to the greater stability of a half-filled than (instead of "or") fully-filled orbital.

I think it should be fixed?

Drova (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, I am an admin here, but that is for administrative things. I can discuss content issues, though I am not an authority on things chemical. I see your point. Do go ahead, be bold, and make the changes. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2,6-diaminopyridine

Hi Rifleman 82

At the beginning I'd like to introduce myself : I am M.Sc student in organometallic complexes & Its application as catalysts in organic reactions . I know you are specializing in organometallic chemistry so I'll really need your help & I'll be very grateful to you. I have a problem in preparation of 2,6 –diaminopyridine derived from 2,6-diacetylpyridine with aromatic amine . Help me Lily26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily26 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not sure if you are talking about an article, or this particular transformation. I've tried to search for this compound, but I can't find it.
As you can imagine, OM is a huge field, and don't feel qualified to comment on this particular example. Have you read Reductive_amination? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strontium titanate

Red=O; blue=Sr; green=Ti

Hi Rifleman 82,

I am not going to argue with an MO chemist about classification. Unfortunately, physicists call strontium titanate a TMO. Also a wikipedia article has the same classification - see Strontium titanate. Perhaps, a note on proper classification from chemical perspective is needed but I am not qualified to make it. Physics community has huge number of papers calling it an oxide. Here is one example http://people.na.infn.it/~marrucci/reprints/prb07.pdf

Thanks,

Freecat (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think a more accurate descriptor will be "oxo compound" or "oxo anion" - this implies there are X=O bonds. To me at least, a TM oxide would be a binary compound MxOy (whether or not it is a simple "ionic compound", a polymeric network compound, or a discrete molecule. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will talk to the people who work with TMOs tomorrow and will fix it sometime this week. Freecat (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a compound with discrete TiO32−, but a perovskite, with the structure shown in the figure to the right. I don't know if it should be called a mixed oxide or not, but since there are no formal X=O bonds, perhaps oxo anion is not the best description. --Itub (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Itub. I asked Axio, our resident inorg expert to take a look at it. If you don't see X=O, I guess calling it an oxo anion would not be quite appropriate. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, physicists do call strontium titanate and similar materials TMOs. Whether it is correct or not chemically it does not matter at this point. It is accepted terminlogy in a large community. The origin of this use is in doping actual transition metal oxides, well, except the dopant concentration can run from 0 to 100%. And yes, STO and SVO etc are perovskites: e.g. see Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy of perovskite-type transition-metal oxides and their analyses using tight-binding band structure PHASE TRANSITIONS, 79 (8): 617-635 AUG 2006 Freecat (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing chemistry topics.

Actually, I put in "attention" tags but you're right, "expand" could have been better. I noticed these because they are linked to my missing chemistry topics page as well - Skysmith (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tungsten carbide

Thanks for the star! Seeing as you have read tungsten carbide perhaps you could advise me on what can be done to further improve it.
There are a number of WC "compounds" W2C W3C and WC(1-x) - the last two are defect structures and W2C has lots of polymorphs which are nearly all the same but slightly different, if you take my meaning. I had thought of splitting out the W2C compound (it is commercially available apparently - presumably used when coating at high T. or when carburising so forming WC in the coating - however I do not know and engineering contacts are of little help.)- there is some good stuff about the Luftwaffe and first use of titanium carbide armor piercing shells-- which refers to "W2C" (W2C ??)- but I cannot corroborate this.(as an aside-the use of the carbide rather than tungsten- why? W is pretty dense so why go to all the trouble of producing the carbide- why not just use the metal- with you military background perhaps you can enlighten me?)
The alternative to producing another article could be to put a section in the tungsten carbide article referring to W2C and the other W-C phases and leave it at that- any thoughts?--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping of "Virginal" and "Virginals"

Hi, we need the help of an administrator over at "Virginals". Can you please swap "Virginal" and "Virginals" for us, i.e., make "Virginal" the main article and "Virginals" the redirect? See the discussion at "Talk:Virginals#Article name: "Virginal" or "Virginals"?". Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OBJECT - sorry, I happen to specialise in music of this period, and in literature of the period it's ALWAYS referred to as Virginals or a pair of Virginals. It's like 'scissors' and 'jeans' - a plural noun that refers to a singular object. This is as silly as moving scissors to scissor or jeans to jean. I know this is a far more obscure topic than either of those, but please consult those of us who are musicians before moving an article like this, particularly if you're not familiar with the topic at hand. Please move it back to Virginals. InfernoXV (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait til Sunday for you guys to sort it out and decide which it should be, before I move it either way. At the moment, the article title and the article lede do not contradict, so there is little harm done either way. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged! I'd point out that Jacklee is not a musician and while I applaud his efforts at getting the format and style of the article improved, he is clearly not familiar with the subject matter. InfernoXV (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look, I did raise the issue on the article's talk page, and the main editor of the article had no objection to the change. No one else weighed in on the discussion (though perhaps I should have waited a bit longer before requesting Rifleman 82's help). I was just going with what appeared to be the more common usage, according to the OED and Google. But of course I'm happy to defer to your superior knowledge in this area. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rifleman 82. Another administrator, Gwib, has moved the article back to "Virginals". Anyway, thanks for your help. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Flomoxef.png

It looks like you noticed the same thing at the same time as me.  :) It didn't really fit speedy deletion criteria, but I think it's best to have deleted anyway. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

Hey R-82, just wondering if you can give some advice on this edit. It looks like spam to me, they've put a link into both the References and the External links. I'd revert it but I'm not sure if I should interpret this as spam or not. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, certainly spam. I've rolled it back. Thanks for letting me know. In future, you can WP:Be bold and revert by yourself!--Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I'll look into getting some rollback tools one day. Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I figured I had to get some sort of permission but didn't really want to be asking anyone. I'll go easy on it. Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At it again with Needle aspiration biopsy from a different address. Didn't think I'd be using rollback that quick... Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot for adding categories

Hi, I remember you once offered me help with robotic changes to categorization. The time has finally come! I just created the article on name reactions, that is, chemical reactions named after their discoverers or developers. I also created Category:Name reactions. There are hundreds of name reactions that could be added to this category. I've put a list at User:Itub/Name reactions. Could you use your bot to add them to that category? Thanks, Itub (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Since you haven't replied to this message, I was thinking maybe you didn't notice it since you received several messages around the same time. If I'm wrong and it was for some other reason, just let me know (I won't be offended, I promise!), so I can start looking for some other way of categorizing these articles. Cheers, Itub (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Itub

I'm so sorry! Yes, I haven't noticed this message at all. I'll get my bot to add these articles to Category:Name reactions. The list seems short; you should see the results by tonight. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rifleman 82/Psychedelics

Looks like we're all done now. Thanks for your help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium carbonate

Hi there

I noticed your recent edit of calcium carbonate. I have a few questions; perhaps you can explain?

  1. I don't think the "test" you have listed is appropriate for this section of the article. The tone of that section is not appropriate either - WP is not a howto.
  2. I don't understand why you replaced a properly formatted citation into a simple link which goes to a subscription-only site.
  3. The Farsi inter-wiki looks correct. I suppose you have a reason for removing it?

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there Rifleman, you must have me confused with someone else. I didn't add that section you are referring to. I added a definition of its use in the oil industy. I may have corrected some spelling or grammatical errors, though.

Mudgineer (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiraphos

A tag has been placed on Chiraphos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Chiraphos. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mww113 (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hey sorry to 'plate you, I just wanted you to know that I nominated the article for deletion, you must have an article translated before creating the page. See WP:Translation Cheers! Mww113 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiraphos

Restored to your userspace> Full reply in my Talk page at your post. Happy wiking. -- Alexf42 12:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 4df08b612ecc8ef3a2205ccc21ce081c

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Aerodrome

Thanks for fixing my mess up on one of the refs. My Internet connection just kept refusing to transmit the page edit so I couldn't fix it myself--ProperFraction (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's no problem. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myogauge

Hello. I have been told I need to find a notable editor to look at and approve my article about The MyoGauge Pain Measurement Test (PMT). The paragraph I wrote is simply a statement about the company I work for, and I my opinion is not promotional in the least. We simply feel that our test should be included in the list of Malingering Detection and should also have a description attached. I looked at the history of the Malingering article and found that you have contributed to it at times. Could you please review what I wrote and submit it in a way that will allow it to stay posted? Thank you for your time. Csbruggers (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cylindrospermopsin

Hey R-82, I see you've been busy with the references. I used the Google Scholar tool to "wikify" those, assuming that it'd have a correct output. Is there a template that they must adhere to, or better way of doing it now?

Btw, I'm getting around to addressing the PR suggestions- just been a bit slack... :)Freestyle-69 (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Singaporeans

Can I just change the tags then? Spiderone (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piperidine

As several editors are insisting that piperidine is fireant venom, and piperidine is a structural component of neuroleptics, ergo neuroleptics would act on the brain like fireant venom and cause nerve inflammation... I have, now to make them happy, added a list of toxic piperidine compounds, which of course all carry over to all other piperidine compounds in their effects. I hope edits are now not reversed any more without comment by these editors, and they are happy to find their theory confirmed. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piperidine vs. chicken soup etc.

Not that you get me wrong. I did rid the piperidine article of utter nonsense, like: "Piperidine increases the bioavailability of phenothiazine in neuroleptics. Phenothiazine is an insecticide and a carbamate, as such causes "anticholinesterase blocking toxicity". Piperidine causes the stinging and biting sideeffects of neuroleptics, as it is a fireant toxin. See also history of phenothiazine. same editors, same nonsense. I am not a conspiracy theorist and have a very solid background. Next day the edits were reverted without comment by Dr. Carebear and some other editor. So I patched the correct information back, again and again. See my comments on the top of the talk page. These editors don't know the difference between a mixture and a chemical compound. They think chemistry is like cooking a chicken soup: If you cook the soup on chicken, it is a chicken soup and tastes like chicken. If you add salt, it becomes more salty. If you add pepper, it becomes spicy hot. etc. So all piperidine compounds carry over the properties of the mother substance. If a piperidine compound is an insecticide, you can rightfully assume, that all other piperidine compounds are insecticidal too, depending on the "mixture". etc. etc. I finally gave up the revert war, friendly and educating explanations on the talk page of Dr. Carebear proved useless, see there. Same for the other editor. Look there. I have talked with them like to a sick horse. Then I added a horrible assortment of piperidine compounds to the page, with colorful description of the effects. (among them, making the brain radioactive with radiolabeled Piperidilbenzilate, and turning people into zombies) At least this was factually correct, and everybody was happy. I hoped however that this would lead to a "reductio ad absurdum" of their chemical theories. (from grannies chicken soup) I would prefer if these editors abstain from adding to chemistry articles in the future, but maybe contribute to chicken soup recipes. Every explanation is lost on them so far. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of idiocy and hooliganism has been going on for at least a year now. See talk page Dr. Carebear. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

simvastatin.svg

I've upload a new version of image:simvastatin.svg, but the number 3 is not correct. How to display sub in the svg of wikipedia? I draw the it in bkchem. --Siriudie (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haloform reaction

You mean combining them? They are about the same mechanism, but the first one involves oxidation and the other one has detailed halogenation mechanism. Before combining the images, the text would have to be rewritten as well. -Puppy8800 (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. It seems all right now. Do we need an overall reaction scheme for this? -Puppy8800 (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea for that one...I've drawn a scheme image and redrawn the oxidation image, I think the version now is much better. -Puppy8800 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. -Puppy8800 (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haloform reaction/Draft

Considering that its a copy of Haloform reaction, I have no idea what your plans are for this article. But you've been around for a while so I guess I'll watch. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of the Military Operations Research Society of Korea

A tag has been placed on Journal of the Military Operations Research Society of Korea, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Siwel Ziva (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

piperidine

Hard times. You are welcome. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Take a look. Is that already better now? Still needs more work of course. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better. Thanks. If I may suggest, this structure of the article might flow a bit better:

  1. Production
  2. Structure
  3. Reactions
  4. Uses
  5. Derivatives
  6. Refs

N-methylpiperidine shouldn't be in "uses" because that should be solely for (the unsub) piperidine. Similarly, the natural occurrences section should refer to piperidine itself only. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the natural occurences I disagree as it was labeled "Natural occurence of piperidine and derivatives". The reason is that in the usual nomenclature of alkaloids the pyridine class is distinguished with the piperidine class as a subclass. (the hydrogenated form) So I reserved one sort section of that for piperidine itself, the second on only separated by line drop to the related natural compounds. Somebody who reads about "the piperidine alkaloid lobeline" will find the reference here. See ref.(The plant alkaloids) It is a little historical, but I like these historical refs as I am old.

Regarding N-methylpiperidine, I think the compound is not notable enough to warrant an own article by now, so it could be covered as a side aspect here. agree? 70.137.149.127 (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied mostly from eastern block materials, what I have learned is importance for practical specialist. If I look up "piperidine alkaloid" I will find this point, and an exhaustive reference of 800 pages. Thats the intent. Same if I look up "indian tobacco piperidine" etc. Make it practical. For Specialistny, not only professor. Crystalline clear logic is maybe intellectually satisfying, but we can't be too strict in principles, there is a trade off against above points. Trust me. R&D for 35 years, but you are new far as I can tell. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not rename the section "Piperidine alkaloids" instead? That'll be less ambiguity about overlap with the "uses" section. Also, can we list the uses of piperidine first, then have a subsection "piperidine derivatives"? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, I feel strongly that we should talk about *this* compound, and discuss the *compound class* distinctly. I might not have 35 years R&D, but I have had a few years here and I've spent a lot of time writing articles here that I know the problem of the compound being mixed with the compound class. If there is sufficient material, we can split it off to form an article pipieridine alkaloids. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly the point. As I feel there is currently not and likely will be not enough material soon for that kind of split, we have to keep it as a side aspect of parent compound until then. I think we have an understanding and are settled. Mixing with the parent compound avoided until then by clear distinction and language, as I tried. Unfortunately, exemplified by unlucky reader of this article, there will always be a confusion about parent compound and derivatives until eternity, relative to intellectual capacity of reader, but unavoidable, regrettably. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that breaking up the information into 100 distinct sections for systematic reasons is not warranted, as long as each section only holds one or two lines of text. So keep it now from an overly systematic approach, until the volume of the section warrants further systematic refinement. Until then lump logically disjoint but related things together in big practical categories. Thats what I have tried to do. trust me. More refinement with the available material is ridiculous. May change later. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on unit symbols for liter

We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alkoxide

OK, you are welcome to look at the Talk:Alkoxide page. There has been no attempt of citing oneself, but a serious introduction of internationally recognized contributions. ChemComm publishes not only "overspecialized" communications but even invited reviews. Cover stories in the leading journals are not overspecialized either.

We have not started a war, we just took a challenge we thought to be put by a former group member we suspected in vanity citations. If you are not this person, we just apologize to each other /Sommartorpare, Revolvermannen and Semesterfiraren

WP:WPEX

Hi Rifleman, I have launched the Explosives WikiProject. Feel free to sign up if you wish and provide any suggestions as to priorities that should be established for improving the articles on explosives. Thanks, EVCM (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cycloheximide

Hi, I would appreciate your comments on talk:cycloheximide regarding an edit by Chem-awb. //Essin (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hi, Rifleman82,

I don't understand why you redirected the oscillatory baffled reactor pages. Please help.

Thanks,

Nitech2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitech2008 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just found out how to sign. Hope this time works. --Nitech2008 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I didn't redirect the article, but I wholeheartedly agree with the person who did. The last version of the article appears to be promotional material more suitable for a brochure, than an encyclopedic article. Among other things, this includes language which contain uncited assertions, such as:

A pharmaceutical crystal has two polymorphs, α being the metastable crystal of prismatic shape and β the stable one of needle shape. In traditional STR operations, the solution-mediated transformation from α to β occurs regularly for any fluctuation ...


A large pharmaceutical company had problems in filtration of crystals used for one of their blockbuster drug manufacturing. Their batch STR crystallisation process took over 8 hours with needle crystals prevailing, leading to long filtration times. ...


A pharmaceutical company was interested in increasing the filtration index. The filtration index is defined as the ratio of a product of the volume by the height of a filter cake over a product of the pressure applied by the time taken for filtration. ...


A large food company was interested in increasing the Iodine Value (IV) for their edible oil ranges. The current operation uses large batch stirred tanks, and they are unable to achieve linear cooling rate, and their IV fluctuated daily. Using the

See WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, WP:V. Your choices at this point, are:
  1. make your case on the talk page, for why this device, which appears to be a proprietary design, is notable enough for inclusion as a particular example, rather than as a class of devices
  2. rewrite the article to be dispassionate and neutral
  3. redirect the article as was previously done
Do let me know if you have any other questions. Hope this helps. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I shall make some modification. However, from the history, all my contributions from 6th August to 1st September have disappeared! I cannot access the text to make changes. Please help. --Nitech2008 (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the article was speedily deleted because you blanked it. Anyway, I have restored it to your user space, where you can do what you feel is necessary. If you can't see the text you are looking for, check the history. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions

Thanks for restoring the article.

I would like to follow up your suggestion number 1 and make my case. This device is different and unique, as it can provide plug flow under laminar flow conditions (no other devices in the market can do this). Chemical and pharmaceutical companies are interested, however, want to see real examples being done using such a device. We have achieved that over the years, but are limited by how much we could disclose. The paragraphs you cited consist of the real industrial problems and real solutions, without giving out the names and brands of the products. This is the only way for such unique device to be heard among the chemical and pharmaceutical world. Apart from this section, the rest of the article combine science and technology for this device. I hope these are ok. --Nitech2008 (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw a G6 tag in my article and a note saying that the article does not exist in Wikipedia when I access it from outside. How could I resolve this? Thanks.--Nitech2008 (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is far from the only way for you to get publicity for your products, nor will other Wikipedia users allow it to be used in such a way. If you really cannot imagine any better ways of publicizing your product, then, frankly, I doubt the veracity of your claims as would most potential clients. Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hewgyrrr

Do you want to dispose of Hewgyrrr, as well as the rest of Ninnys nanobyte's novelties? Lavateraguy (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bisphenol A

Thanks for spotting my oversight. I'll consider some more grovelling for that. lol. But there is a public apology on the discussion board. Thanks again for alerting me to that Rifleman. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage removal needed

Two article and a nonsense-generating editor are discussed on Itub's talk. The kid should get a warning and rapid deletions should be proposed. If you have the time.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking like a real troll - check out Phenyl cuprate (II).--Smokefoot (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Smokefoot, thanks for the note. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G2ZT

Hi, I finally got my hands on the G2ZT images we discussed. Here's the new version: Image:G2ZT-compact.svg. What do you think? If you think it's OK, I'll put it in the article. --JaGatalk 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JaGa, I think it's perfect! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll put it in. Thanks for the help. --JaGatalk 03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, shouldn't you update your wikibreak banner? --JaGatalk 04:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IfD close

Hi Rifleman. FYI, You closed this as speedy delete, but the images still have not been deleted. -- Suntag (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the image (DET.png) has been deleted. It still shows, though, because it's on commons. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to the Image:Madonna GiveIt2Me video1.jpg image, which has not yet been speedy delete. Your close looked like this when I saw it. Looks like something odd happened. -- Suntag (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Potassium persulfate.png

Hi Rifleman. I have added the {{disputed chem}} tag to Image:Potassium persulfate.png on Commons because it is missing an oxygen atom. If you would like to fix it, please just remove the tag. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Ed, thanks for the note. I've uploaded a new copy, do take a look? (4 eyes better than 2, this time, everytime) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. I have added it to the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the old figure could still be useful for the potassium pyrosulfate article, though. --Itub (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the old image could certainly be uploaded with a new name and used there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endo/exo image

Hi Rifleman_82, you could probably improve Image:Endo_exo.png if you make sure that all opposite bonds are parallel (those on the right side are not) and if you let the bottom R/H point straight down :-) Cacycle (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Cacycle
Thanks for the note. Thanks for the comments, it helps me improve. I'm a bit tied up, but will get round to it in a few days. Thanks again. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cacycle, take a look at Image:Endo exo 2.png? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice :-) What do you think about removing the H, in a perspective formula it is redundant and R and H look very similar? Cacycle (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicyclics are *really* not my thing (as in, I don't encounter them often, don't draw them often)! I thought having the hydrogens explicit would help in illustrating the nomenclature rules, but if you think it is redundant, I can easily remove it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EO consistency of wikichemical category

Hi Rifleman, I noticed that you took eucalyptus oil off the chemical category. So I guess on that logic we should also take citronella oil off as well?John Moss (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a chemical. Removed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Response factor

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Response factor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kkmurray (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still working on this article, go ahead and remove the PROD.--Kkmurray (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

I haven't had the time to work on it recently. I do think we should have an article about it, but I welcome your thoughts? If need be, move it to my userspace (I can do it if you want) for now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub dePRODed, so I went ahead and added sections and a couple of references. It's still an orphan but will probably be useful for some of the chromatography and spectroscopy articles. There really needs to be a grand chromatography theory article. Maybe when there are enough smaller articles, it will be easier to write a larger one. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS/Draw

As I clearly pointed out in my edit summary, I added the tag because the article itself still showed no evidence of notability; a user shouldn't have to navigate to the AFD discussion to figure out why the heck this random program is worthy of an article. The tag encourages users to "please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability", which is what I felt needed to be done. I mean, chances are pretty awesome that the article's just going to sit there as a pointless stub for another several years anyway, but I see no harm in at least pointing out the improvement that's needed.

That being said, I agree with the person who added the importance tag (despite the weirdly vague designation for a tag referencing "notability", not "importance") that it's a better fit. [BTW, you know that you have a wikibreak tag at the top of your Talk page, right? Just checking.] Propaniac (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit, so that it's no longer a substub, Just to try to prove you wrong. ;-) But anyway, I don't think it was pointless even as it was before: it said what the program was, cited a reference containing a detailed review, and had a link to the official website. That is still better than having nothing at all, IMHO. --Itub (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Then revert as you desire. I only did it on one. —kurykh 19:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA nomination

OK, I've decided to take your offer. --Itub (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Itub, that's great to hear! I just got back from work, and am exhausted (it's almost midnight here). Give me a few days and I'll take care of the administrative issues for you. You're an old hand, so you probably know how it goes. Anyway, do take a look at the various RFA pages to get a feel of the process. You might also want to start drafting your replies. The nomination will only be transcluded on the RFA page when you are good and ready, so there's no rush on your part. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll think about the standard questions in the meantime. --Itub (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melamine resin

Hey Rifleman, I'm a bit concerned about this edit- the text is copy/pasted from the external link. It seems that it's a good faith edit, but clearly there's some copyright issues (even if the editor is the website owner, right?). Doesn't look to be obvious spam, any thoughts? Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the additions down, since most are not relevant to the article. Not yet, at least. Will be totally unbalanced at the present moment. Added an image, sanity check please? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a machine... I was really just asking for advice, and since I opened my trap I was prepared to do it myself (albeit with a slightly smaller axe). Looks much better though... Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Freestyle

No problem at all. I'm actually sorry - perhaps I misinterpreted your comments. Anyway, if you come about stuff like this in the future, please WP:be bold and make changes as you see fit! Anyway, this is the easy part. The harder part is dealing with disgruntled editors who might not see the rationale behind my actions. Of course, what I do is (should be!) perfectly justifiable, but new editors not accustomed to our standards might need some time convincing. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with cite-format (article almost ready for another FAC)

Pleeeeease, oh, please.

Hi. I hope you don't mind me dropping in uninvited. I found you at the Citation cleanup project. You see, the article on Sitakunda Upazila failed an FAC mostly because of cite-format issues (inconsistent format, missing bits of information etc.). I have fixed all the issues raised, but, I feel, an expert hand may be needed to fix further problems. Would you take a look? Please? I, of course will be there to provide any clarification or information necessary. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Give me a few days I'll get it checked. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm planning to take this to FAC again, as soon as we are done (it'll need another copycheck too, I guess... but that's optional for now). Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother again, really. But, you see, I have no one else to turn to at the moment. I just wanted to knock once again before you forget. Well, forgive me for I am a bit anxious about the article. I have worked so long and hard on it, and now I am faced with an issue I have no expertise about. :( Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the first three sections. As you can see, it's quite a bit of detail work; I won't be able to finish it all at one shot. You can help by identifying and removing duplicate references. I've caught two so far. It'd make my life easier.

As a side note, I'm a bit concerned about the quality of some references. South Asia Terrorism Portal is described by some as a partisan site; you also have a lot of non-peer reviewed papers. These are just impressions, I just scan for references without reading the tags so my comments may or may not be relevant. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identified and fixed one duplicate copy (fixed the code argument, that is). Looking for more (I hope there aren't many more of them). Most of the non-peer reviewed papers (all of them, if remember correctly) are about information that aren't likely to be challenged academically, and are probably the most reliable source for most of those information till now. If you strongly think any of those need to be replaced or removed, please, let me know.
There's another area where I can work, I believe, and that's about cite formats. I'd just need advice on the bottom-line of synergy (or coherence, if you want to call it that) of formatting. If you notice anything significantly incoherent about the formatting, please, let me know.
Can't thank you enough for lending a hand. Today was a bad day for me in many ways, and you've been my only ray of sunshine. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhenium

As you are the main contributor to the article rhenium and I want to get it B-class, I wanted to ask if you can have a look? I added some pictures and a lot of references. Might be good to state where the points are which have to improve.--Stone (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Stone
I'm hardly an expert on rhenium; I've only done some work on rhenium compounds. Based on what I know, the article looks great. In my own literature reviews, I've come across Re being used as a hydrodesulfurization catalyst. Most importantly, it is not poisoned by sulfur. If this is industrially important, perhaps worth a mention. I'm swamped right now (as you can see from my talk), but when I have a bit more time I'll try and help there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will try to find something about the hydrodesulfurization. But it is good that you had a look! --Stone (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium metasilicate

There is a picture here [1] of a section of a metasilicate chain similar to that in sodium metasilciate- there are lots of different ways in which the tetrahedra can link- if you can get hold of Greenwoods book- p 350 gives an overview of different inosilicates- the dimensions in the chain are- Si-O-Si angle is 134° Si-O links 167 pm and Si-O terminal 159pm and a repeat distance across 2 tetrahdera of 520pm- I am slow at pictures at the best of times and find these bridged structures difficult with the software I have. Hope you can help!--Axiosaurus (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left my G&E in the lab so I won't be able to do it tonight. Ben seems to have a better grasp of these network structures. I'm not confident of doing it nicely. I'll drop him a note later. Sorry about that! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organofluorine chemistry, Fluorocarbon, organofluorine, etc

I sent a similar note to Edgar and Beetstra on this difficult area. I am barely available this week and editor User:Shootbamboo is extremely active and needing advice - apparently listening when the advice is coordinated. The problem requires broad community attention. Thanks and best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Sodium borohydride

Yeah, you're probably right, for the most part. Though, some of the info I added should stay. Sodium borohydride is a notably dangerous reagent. The info about LD50 is worthy of inclusion, and the general toxicology info, reactivity with water, etc.. Do what you think is best. Fuzzform (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirin is a trademark in most of the world.

Please make it clear in your edits that Aspirin, while it is a generic name in the United States, is a trademark in Canada and most of the world. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1,7-Dimethylxanthine is not IUPAC name. 1,7-dimethyl-3H-purine-2,6-dione is.