User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 8 (End Jun 2009)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...


Electrochemical fluorination

Rifleman82: something an adminstrator is needed for: move electrofluorination to electrochemical fluorination. The catch is that the latter already exists as a redirect. Best wishes for the New Year down there.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Smokefoot. It's done, let me know if you need anything else. Merry X'mas (belated) and a happy new year to you too! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A belated thanks for your help with this move and many related aspects. BTW, Cacycle's response to your note highlights the growing need for greater involvement of chem admins in technical debates.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Singapore Pools.png)

You've uploaded File:Singapore Pools.png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT!! Chem-AWB

Hi Rifleman, I think the replacement of Chembox-new to Chembox by the bot is inserting an extra whitespace line at the bottom, causing all upgraded article to have their headline shifted. Please correct! Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Wim, I'll go take a look, thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Chem-awb is not adding any extra lines. Perhaps {{chembox}} has extra whitespace at the end that {{chembox new}} didn't have? I kind of like having a line break between the chembox and the start of the text - just so it's easier to see where the article text starts. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Rifleman, Ed, example is Benzeneselenol. You clearly see a extra white line on top of the article now. If you look at the previous version (before Chem-AWB action), you don't see the whitespace there. I agree with Ed that it is preferable to allow a whitespace line between the end-of the chembox and the beginning of the text while in editing mode, but I strongly dislike the whitespace above the article. As Ed points out, perhaps the error is not in ChemAWB action (checking diffs suggests so), but in the {{chembox}} (formerly "new") itself! The layout result is there! I'll go check there too. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Yep, that's it: in {{chembox}}, there's an extra newline between the last </includeonly> and <noinclude>. (Thanks Ed for pointing into the right direction). Without adminstrator I cannot unprotect the page the template page. Rifleman, can you take care of this silly typing mistake, please? Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, done. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, for Benzeneselenol, the first line of text is in line with "benzeneselenol" in the box. That is the expected behavior, no? (Using Firefox 3). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the issue seems to be fixed now. All the articles I've looked at, including benzeneselenol, have alignment of article text and chembox. Thanks, Rifleman and Wim, for fixing it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for me too, all alignment problems are solved now. Thanks, all! Wim van Dorst (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

line wrap

Actually I have replaced dash by dash space, where appropriate, to allow line wrap by every browser. The problem is the kind of separator characters recognized in wrap algorithms. This is most portable using a space, which doesn't change semantics. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have brought in valid concerns and valid contributions to the discussion. We, you and me=anon 70.137, have had valid and fruitful discussions before, remember. So it is a little overdone to call my contributions only rants, even if we may disagree on discussion style. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed: Sitakunda Upazila

The article failed an FAC mostly because of irregularities in citation format. I found you at the ciitation cleanup project, and I am really hoping that you can help the article. Would you consider helping it, please? Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mittelalter rock/metal

Thanks for the move. Cheers. --Bardin (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraquat

Looks like you must've missed the points I raised in the discussion section of this article when you reverted my changes. It's normally considered rather poor form to revert a discussed change without adding to the discussion, or even explaining your reasoning, but it looks like you're a busy editor, and these things happen. So I've reinstated the changes, in order to give you another chance to properly amend and build upon the edits, following the guidelines properly this time.

Since you seem to be a bit of a chemistry enthusiast, I'd also appreciate your taking a peek at the comments I posted in the discussion of thee "viologens" pag. You're probably one of the better qualified editors to answer those points in the article :) DewiMorgan (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like your mods to Paraquat there - good and balanced. Thanks for the thorough comments too! I left a comment there asking about trade names: I *think* they're just trademarks, but I've not edited the article, since I'm not 100% sure of myself. DewiMorgan (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanadium

Thanks for the help with the article! I think now the pros is good enough that it can pass as GA. Thanks!--Stone (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Vandium, please do not change the English variation unilaterally. The article is in American English, and should remain as such unless an obvious reason to change it is presented and approved on the talk page. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I actually have to *try* to write in BrE I was simply responding to comments at the GA review. When I first encountered the article, my impression was that BrE was predominant. Am I mistaken? It seems rather insulting that you treat my good faith attempt to fix a stylistic issue, as a self-centered decision. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, according to this diff the first visible version that spells a word with English Variation is spelled oxidize, which is American English. Not sure what rational is given for changing this, so I will bring it up on the element talk page. Thanks The Seeker 4 Talk 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply here. Please assume good faith, there was nothing sanctimonious about my actions or statements. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for the help and do not get annoyed. Your edits helped alot and if you need any help I will be there! --Stone (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stone, thanks for the note. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know it was never my intention to talk down to you, to insult you or otherwise irritate you. I also hope you know I never thought your edits were not in good faith. I believed at the time, correctly it turns out, that you assumed the article should be in British English. I reverted you, which is in no way a comment on your motives, and explained why. Just to clarify some things which may have contributed to your irritation: I began reading your first talk page message before this diff and clicked edit after you had made that edit. I can see why you may have thought my ignoring your comment about feeling insulted may have seemed sanctimonious, but the reason for it was I did not see that comment when I was writing my own and only saw it after I returned to your page following my leaving you my messages on the GA2 talk page. In closing, at no time did I assume bad faith about you or your edits, and at no time was I attempting to insult or irritate you. I simply saw a conversion of AmEng to BrEng on an article that was historically American English, reverted it and waited for confirmation that the article did not need to be in British English. When that confirmation came here I reviewed the article for any other British words and changed them to American. I just want you to know I did not blindly revert your edits, that I did assume good faith about your motives and actions, and I didn't simply come through the article, revert what you did and then not put forth any effort of my own to improve the article. I do see how your thinking I was doing all or any one of those things would have irritated you and apologize for the misunderstanding. Good luck with editing. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remarks. On my part, I should not have been so quick to anger. For that, I apologize.
Like you gave your side, mine: I usually use AmE, so -ize and -zing doesn't register, while the few BrE words stuck in my head. I'm not sure if this is the case, but Stone has been a major contributor and I assumed his contributions would have been in BrE as I think is preferred in Germany. More impressions than facts.
Once again, thanks for coming by. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some unusual edits by an IP

Hey R82, I'm still meandering around from time to time. I'm a little puzzled by some edits by 69.225.254.163, this is an example but there are others. Plenty of this IP's edits seem quite good, and in the same style, so I'm assuming the same person. Talk page has had one comment about using odd words, such as this edit. I've gone back a bit and changed/reverted a couple of the edits, but they seem in good faith, although as I'm not really up with the formatting-type requirements I'm not sure. Also, minor edits on things such as serial commas here seem a bit pointless, as they are just a stylistic preference. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not "pointless". They are operative breaks between clauses. The British lack of end-comma is illiterate. -lysdexia 06:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.254.163 (talk)

zinc compounds

This section is getting a bit heavy in the element article. I assume that by the time the FAC will be over, some information from the amin article will get removed or more succinct. On the other hand, the separate article may whenever be expanded with whatever information may be out there. Compounds of oxygen was a very similar story. Nergaal (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Org Syn/Wulff-Dotz reaction

The authors don't show up on the org syn reference which is why I was trying to fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavefortheempire (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be no way that I am aware to fix the authors not showing up and have the link to org syn work. I may add more material to the Dotz reaction page. I hope that is ok. --theslave (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of pharmacology articles

I started WP:PHARM:CAT in hopes of providing better guidance regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. If available, I have posted an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2-mercaptoethanol page

I saw your edit on the 2-mercaptoethanol page after I updated earlier today. It's fine with me. However, since you're obviously an avid editor of chemistry-related pages, I wonder your opinion about simply removing that "potential beneficial effects" portion of the page. I don't find the references compelling at all, personally. Thanks. Mjatucla (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main problems with our chemical articles is that they attract all sorts of weird trivia. Take a look at sodium bicarbonate for a sundry list of uses. Without reading the articles, the two refs are twenty years old. I guess if it were a bigger deal, we would have more publications, and perhaps a few reviews. I'll just take that section out, but of course I welcome your input in this and other matters. I don't work with this compound, but if you know any applications, especially in industrial quantities (as an intermediate perhaps?), or can expand its use in labwork, it would be great. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for babysitting that page. Mjatucla (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Chemistry Star
Thank you for the significant improvements you made to acyl chloride. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I just undid your removal of the Appel reaction from the article, and added a reference. Does that work for you? -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request

Thanks for working with me on EDTA. I noticed that the edit note for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SquareOuroboros contains a link to a viral site. It is a good idea to remove those notes so that others dont make my mistake. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all fixed now! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that was fast, but they are back. I recommend hiding all links in their logs and edit summaries. Isla Nublar is the culprit.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider listing the site at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions, or even at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed additions ;) Physchim62 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the manner of the link might allow it to evade the spam blacklist. Just my speculation. I've been sending similar contribs to an oversighter to clean the edit summaries, but it seems we're stuck with playing whackamole. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB for chembox validation

Hi Rifleman 82,

I'm after AWB authorisation to try it out for automating parts of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Chembox_validation process. Thanks! Ambix (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for your change to "Sodium hypochlorite" on 2/24/09; content and form are improved. GVB012009 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

Thanks for the note. It seems that there are so many MOS's and they are so long that I was confused. It would be a helpful service if you or Walkerma could trim down the number of pages that deal with this issue. Also we might think about condensing long advice pages with "in a nutshell." --Smokefoot (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi, Rifleman 82. Thanks for pointing out the new chemistry project guidelines. Don't be disheartened by some unhelpful comments. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
To Rifleman 82, for taking opposition in good humor. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Heya Axl, thanks for your kind words. It feels much better, that somebody actually understands my point of view. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing that MEDMOS discussion thread I thought I ought to drop in here and add a thanks for the notice re the excellent WP:CHEMMOS (an extensive body of linked pages that are clearly written and indeed I found interesting to read :-) ), as well as what had been your sincere and sensible approach at seeking project collaboration. I do appreciate the logic of your proposal, although personally for most drug articles I still feel synthesis is not of notablity, and for the exceptions then of relatively minor importance compared to other WP:MEDMOS#Drugs sections. However clearly Aspirin#Chemistry & Paracetamol#Synthesis are of immense importance in the development of these blockbusters and those sections seem rightly high up in the articles. So I've added a suggestion that perhaps something needs be added noting an option under the "Physical and chemical properties" section of WP:MEDMOS#Drugs.
Anyway I think a nice touch of Axl issuing the barnstar, and on reflection balances and taps-down my Scream queen first response  :-) David Ruben Talk 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David
Thanks for dropping by, and I am glad you liked our MOS. I respect your (and Axl's) point of view, but I especially appreciate that you understand my intentions. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Very complex history merge! (Possible?)

Could you do a history merge for the following: List of Pixar awards and nominations was split to List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) and List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films). The original list is still intact but holds only some awads categories. First request: merging the histories to each list. Further more, List of WALL-E awards and nominations was split from List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films). Second request: merging the history from List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) and User:Diaa abdelmoneim/WALL-E to List of WALL-E awards and nominations. Big mess.

Is this even possible? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Diaa
I've fixed the merge from your User:Diaa abdelmoneim/WALL-E to List of WALL-E awards and nominations. Apart from that, I do not think it is possible to merge the histories of a split page. Sorry I can't be more of help. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sitakunda Upazila: Help needed

The article has a goodly number of citations, but they were not too well formatted to begin with, and in an attempt to clean it up, another editor has messed them up completely. Can you, please, lend a hand there? The mess looks pretty scary to me. And, I really need help. With the citations organized coherently and according to MoS, this could add to the list of featured articles, I believe. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I somehow botched setting up a DAB page for Paul Pfeiffer, of which there are two entries in WE. WE will not allow me, I am pretty sure, to move Paul Pfeiffer to Paul Pfeiffer (disambiguation), but if you get a chance maybe you could try. No rush. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot, I've tried a fix. Tell me how it goes. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


More muppet editing by me

Thanks for this!

Ben (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of pages after move

Hello fellow admin, if you move a template "sandbox" page in place of its parent template, please restore the protection settings of the older version along with the history. When you moved Template:Chembox Hazards/Sandbox to Template:Chembox Hazards, this highly-visible template became unprotected for 12 hours. Mistakes like this will result in vandalism to templates.

P.S. Please reconsider indefinite semiprotection of your user talk page. It seems inappropriate to indefinitely semiprotect this page, especially for sysops who should be readily message-able by all. Regards, Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I appreciate your letting me know about these two issues. I'll try not to forget again. Thank you once again. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]