User talk:R8R/Archive 2

Naturally occurring fluorine (not fluoride)

Hi. :-) Talk:Fluorine/Archive 1#Elemental occurrence says that F₂ (g) occurs in nature, presumably in the reaction ThF₄ → RaF₂ + F₂ + α (since RaF₄ doesn't exist). Immediately after escaping, this fluorine immediately decomposes water vapour in the atmosphere and leaves behind benign concentrations of ozone as its signature. Is this true? (The OP gave an unspecified textbook as a source.) If so, do you think it should be added into the article? Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sounds believable. (At least the whole cycle, as read there, is easily imaginable). I had the idea some time before (before the archiving was introduced, I guess). Unluckily, I was unable to track any sources to prove on my own. (will add there no new info there before getting a source: it may be problematic to find it later) Whenever I'm back to Moscow, will try one more time. But if no proof is available shortly, it'll stand up in a to-do list. I gotta finish the ref check, find more refs (when I left, there were at least three subsections in a great need of refs, so as you can see, there are things needed to be done). Then (or when I'm too tired of haunting for refs again) I need to think if we need a few more cool facts (HF as a way to track fluorine in the outer space, the relative non-volatility of the same compound (F could be even less abundant, like other atmophiles), and what you just wrote, and who knows if I find another fact I actually never planed to find). (And then things I'm worse at and will need people for)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is immediately consumed, I don't think it makes sense to say that there is naturally occuring F2. what you have is a momentary leaving group. Really an intermediate.69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing it is. But I think noticing it's pretty short-lived and decomposes very fast should be enough. Not that we gotta go into details (not all fluorine escapes to the air, not all alphas oxidize fluorine)... I mean, two or around so sentences should be enough. But why not? Don't find?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to, I am fine with it. My nose says no, but it is really no big deal. 69.255.27.249 (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

proud of you...

Really admire your guts. 76.79.30.102 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man. Your praise is a reason to move on.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Graphics Lab reply

Hello, R8R. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Hello, R8R. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Barium

Hi R8R Gtrs Thanks for the work in the barium artile! I only have a question, why the use of barium as getter material disappeared? I know that the numbers of CRT for TV and computer monitors is decreasing, but it was the major application for metallic barium for a long time. Should I put it back in? --Stone (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for that. I didn't originally get the point of using barium in those TVs. I think I'll fix everything, although please go ahead if I make any (further) mistakes. Also, already noted that they are still popular in India and China (as Ullman told me...amazing book), although I haven't seen one for a few years already.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have a CRT as monitor and as TV at home!--Stone (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Astatine

Have you seen this? The Chemistry of Astatine by A. H. W. Aten, Jr. There's also one for polonium by K. W. Bagnall, which I'm using for polonium (my latest side project). Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks for pointing! I wanted (it was February or around so) to incorporate a few isotopes and production facts from there, added my browser's into the bookmarks list, but a few days later my computer crashed, so I had to re-install the whole system (thus losing very much). Let me know if you need any help with polonium.

I got sidetracked by polonium into clearing out the redlinks in Template:Polonium compounds and populating the category. :-) Double sharp (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the price thing is in one of the refs further down...

Look down to the second and third para. Maybe duplicate the appropriate ref (I know I read it...)64.134.168.97 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am so lazy. 64.134.168.97 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I know where to get the ref, even though haven't seen it. I'll add it, say whether it's plausible or not. We can always remove it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is pretty plausible. The substance is basically used in a monolayer. So a little bit goes a long way (in textiles). 64.134.168.97 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a little joke (did not expect it to live)

See "Listening to Prozac".

64.134.168.97 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it long ago, but each time I was gonna ask you weren't active. Got it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Alkali metal

I finally broke 100 KB on the article (now at 107 KB, even with the two periodic table graphics taken out into their own templates). The compounds section is finally filled up with info, but there's still a lot of work to do (including cleaning up all the "citation needed" tags, but two more sections still need to be filled in)... Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats...I guess? Sorry, I don't remember, I offered some help in past and now you're asking for it? If so, I really won't be able to help before August, sorry. Let me know then if you need something.

Took a quick look. Noticed a lot of fancy images and graphics. Not bad. More info around. Also not bad. You're moving in the right direction :) Keep on! (Don't like the superoxide image, though -- think of MO theory, bond order. Also, is it hopeless to get Rb and Cs flame color test pics?)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed the superoxide image for now (someone has complained about it at Talk:Superoxide as well).

Rb, Cs flame colour: a beautiful set, but we'll never get it. Double sharp (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's better without it.

Hmmm, yeah, sorry not to get it. Maybe you could contact the uploader (Cyberchemist), and he could share for Wiki purposes... Also, where did he get cesium from?

Again, the thing's getting better. I really begin to like it (and the easy language). Hope you'll get it through FAC featured one day--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

He says the Li is LiOH, Na is NaCl, K is KNO₃, Rb is Rb₂CO₃, and Cs is CsCl. Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref in Ununseptium

Hey, just letting you know that, even below the nav templates, there appears to be a ref. I saw you were working on this article, so I thought I would point this out. StringTheory¹¹ 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't notice it myself. However, it's not really likely I'll use it...--R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed heat table colours

I did a :%s/OrangeRed/Orange/g on the table - let me know if that looks OK to you! --Slashme (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Halogens

Given that you've been working on F and At for a long time, and have recently worked on Uus, what do you think about a halogen GT? ;-) (A Na GA would immediately give an alkali metal GT.) Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning to do sodium by the end of this year, so no need to worry about that. StringTheory¹¹ 01:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't say for sure. Halogens (the four stable) are real hard to write (if you want to get a real decent article). Interesting (very), but time-taking. Especially bio stuff I need to get in deep first. At and 117 are more like an accident-- I didn't hunt for them as for halogens-- and I have GAed a few non-halogens articles also. Let's say I've drawn a field of work for me in Wiki for now. I mean, not now (2012 maybe), but we'll see.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up Uus for you so that it's now a GA. :-) Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the favor.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 09:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table

Hey, if you have time, would you mind commenting on the periodic table PR? Your experience with fluorine would be really helpful. StringTheory¹¹ 01:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Really unable, sorry man. Will have a word sometime later, if you still want me to, though--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Mikhail Usanovich

Hello. I remember that you helped find information on V.M.Klechkowsky for his article. I am thinking now of another Russian (or Soviet?) inorganic chemist for whom perhaps you can provide information for English Wikipedia. He is Mikhail Usanovich, who is mentioned in Acid-base reaction#Usanovich definition. I went to the Russian article and found a link to the article ru:Усанович, Михаил Ильич, although I cannot read it. Perhaps you could translate this as a new article for the English Wikipedia? Dirac66 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm currently unable to do any work in Wiki. However, if it can wait for about two weeks, then I'll help--R8R Gtrs (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. There's no hurry. Dirac66 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just read the man's story (PDF link in ru.wiki). No idea of trying something better than simply a translated stub (which I will provide In a few days, hopefully tomorrow)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mikhail Usanovich -- the stub's ready.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. Further comment is on the article talk page. Dirac66 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

CrF6

Wait, CrF6 doesn't exist? What's going on with the Holleman and Wiberg ref, then? (Not that I want to put it back into the F article – it's not immediately relevant. But I'm wondering about it for the hexafluoride and chromium hexafluoride articles.) Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You maybe know that German Riedel is using my trust. http://144.206.159.178/ft/243/588116/14862785.pdf -- you had seen the document before. Hope I could ask you to go and fix the articles?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixing. Mostly it's just correcting "18" to "17" throughout. I RDR'd the CrF6 article back to the main one and added a note about CrF6 being a mistaken identification of CrF5. BTW, the slow-motion edit war at File:Hexafluorides.svg has started again. Now PoF6 is being removed. So does it exist either? Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything's possible. I'd rather say yes, because we need a paper proving the discovery wrong otherwise. A reprint in a chem-summarizing book doesn't serve as good proof, however. But it's the latest thing I've seen on the matter. You can email the authors and ask them (emails on the first page of the paper). Can ask them on plutonium tetroxide, also.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The article. Basically, they seem to imply that PuO₄ is possible, and they don't know how to synthesize it, but they may have actually found it already(!), although that's not been proven. (I asked at the reference desk.) Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Thanks for informing me. Then it's likely to be simply non-existent (as of now), unless there's a need to explain the situation (I mention the compound in fluorine, but I'll remove it simply (no need to explain that it may or may not have been created, it's even unknown if it's possible, blah, blah), but it could use a couple of sentences in plutonium) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting the PuO₄ info in Pu seems to be a good idea. (BTW, how's Bk now? I've cleaned it up – does it look ready for FAC yet?) Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Gimme a few days to take a look--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Resource exchange

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Graphics Lab

Hello, R8R. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Roshan (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hg(III)

DMacks says on List of oxidation states of the elements the source (which you added to the Hg article here) doesn't say that the mercury oxyfluoride is Hg(III) (apparently it's Hg(II).) So, is it Hg(III)? Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the cover out. click the image There are two interesting molecules drawn on it, labeled OHgF and OHg^IIF. I decided therefore the first one was a O=Hg-F (hard to see actually). If the man already actually read the source, he's then right. Also, the abstract (as I just read) doesn't suppose Hg(III) either ("Ungepaarter Elektronenspin am Sauerstoffatom von OHgF deutet auf Quecksilber in der Oxidationsstufe +II hin," I know you know German as well). If I'm not right (which I think now)... my apologies and let's forget it. (I also remember somewhere recently read -O hadn't showed up as a ligand up to then... I wonder why they haven't mentioned this record in the abstract.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed Hg(III) from mercury (element) (the infobox, since DMacks removed it already on the main article) and list of oxidation states of the elements. Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Roshan220195's talk page.
Message added 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry, ma bad... Should have checked the link when I posted it. There shouldn't be a problem now... Roshan (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Roshan (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again.. Roshan (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And again... Roshan (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Forget the mail man, I'll take the request myself.. I borrowed my friend's pc :) Roshan (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh, help me out a bit here. I converted the thing in black and white with a lot of squares to colour. First of all, I don't know how to title it. And second, what license do i upload it under?? Roshan (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, R8R. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Barnstar

The Chemistry Barnstar Because you deserve it. (Best of luck for F, At, Uus, and anything else you want to work on!) Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, man! Appreciated. Will try to hold it on.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, in the Uus article, what's an alpha bond? Double sharp (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And in Fluorine#Highest oxidation states: fluorine versus oxygen, isn't there Ag(IV) also in K₂AgF₆, cited in the Silver article? Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I must've been thinking about something else when writing this. It should be sigma, of course.

Very likely it's so, but as you know, Riedel wrote a paper on the matter in 2009, and said so no (although he seemed to believe, but not proven, if my memory serves me right). I dunno what to do with silver... Maybe similarly say there's no Ag(IV)... maybe it's for the best.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to believe in Ag(IV), but calls the characterisations of the Ag(IV) complexes "more or less incomplete". [1] Double sharp (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Metalloid Barnstar
		In appreciation of your helping hand and gracious words, in finding a reviewer for the metalloid article. Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're always welcome, Sandbh. I had to repay you somehow for all your help with astatine and it was actually the smallest thing I could do.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Resource exchange

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.

Fluorine again

Ref 294 ("Os fluoride theory") is broken. Double sharp (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just fixed it. But generally don't worry about such stuff, I've noticed bots sometimes go across the article and fix these problems--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Further Fluorine

While you are busily working on the fluorine article, I do have several suggestions. I have reputable references to the hydrogen-fluorine laser system, which would make an interesting addition. Also, the direct fluorination (fluorine diluted with inert gases) of polyethylene is a technology that should be included. There are companies currently practicing this technology and many scientific references to the process. It has even been approved for food use. (see 21 CFR 177.1615 - Polyethylene, fluorinated.) Having used elemental fluorine in the production of silver difluoride, I can only begin to appreciate the fun that must be.JSR (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey John. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm not sure about the laser, though. I'm not really familiar with the laser market and such stuff, I admit it. I rather wouldn't include it unless it's very important on the laser market (or capable of doing some unbelievable stuff, we have an "invisibility" studies mention). I very recently removed some archaeology (relative fluoride dating). Measuring fluoride in old earth-covered bones doesn't sound like fun and reader attraction. It's not very important in archaeology, either (has uses, sure, but not essential). Thus out. Lasers are somewhat more attractive... But still tell me if it does do something special. I'd have to find out, but you probably know. I'm also distancing the article from noble gas fluoride lasers, even though they are important (for the compounds rather than on large scale, though). So... if it shows "magic," then I agree. Otherwise... I'd rather not.

OK. If an organic chemist tells me it matters, then it probably does. Wait some of these days. (Although I still want to get familiar with agricultural stuff, so we'll see about the date)

Huh! Wish I could ever do some of those amazing chemistry stuff. (I'm a student, study economics and related stuff, yet chemistry is a hobby. Have some basic equipment at home, pay visits to the chemical store irregularly. Distance myself from the profile subject in here, actually, getting enough in the uni). Also, since you're an organic chemist, could I recruit you to check the organic chemistry section? I think it's not bad, and I like stuff like Nafion and elastomers. The latter are not very relevant to the discussion, since the mostly talks about elastomers in general and how they work, rather than fluorine effect, yet I like it because it's different than most stuff, and if you in detail follow the fluorine influence discussion for each fluorocarbon class, it can get boring for a casual reader. Think the section's not bad, giving a fine overview (don't want a big size change), but still not "diamond." maybe I can get some more suggestions on the matter rather than the PE-fluorine reaction (which I will implement).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are doing better than I would do writing on an economics topic. Anyway, I can write something up, with references and drop it onto your talk page so that you can put it anywhere you want. Feel free to modify as you see fit. I can do the laser one also, it is not cutting edge technology wise, but DARPA spent a ton of money lazing the reaction product of elemental hydrogen and elemental fluorine back in the late 70's. Again, if you see fit, include it, if you don't I can put it somewhere else. It will likely be sometime tomorrow before I get the time to do either one.JSR (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that'd be awesome! --R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gtrs:

Tack onto the fluorinated polymer section perhaps:

Another method of manufacturing fluorinated polymers is the direct fluorination of polyethylene with diluted fluorine. Direct fluorination enhances the vapor barrier properties of industrial polymer components. Fluorination of plastic gasoline automobile tanks can result in an approximately one hundred-fold decrease in the loss of fuel from a tank when compared with that from virgin, untreated tanks. The fluorination process affects a surface layer of only around 0.1 to 10 microns deep and the bulk of the polymer remains unchanged.

I think the vapor barrier use is significant and quite interesting, as well as useful.

Also, it puts a lie to the fluorine is too reactive to react directly with organics, so we might wish to modify that also.

The hydrogen fluoride laser can be found at that link or actually better at chemical laser. A link to those pages might be worth more than trying to spend any significant amount of time discussing them. In the 70's this was one of those Star Wars devices that were going to transform war in the air and in space. They'd spent too much time watching Star Wars.JSR (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Like it. Will add soon (not word-by-word, I'm writing this somewhat like a popular science, need to think about the barrier)

About the laser: I'll look how important fluorine lasers are. No promises. Dunno (yet) if it's worth it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to promise, I agree, not worth including.JSR (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Added fluorination reaction. May go deeper (mention the fuel loss elimination, for example, or whatever), but need to know the industrial scale first (if large enough, may list it among industrial uses), the initial place is for overview details, since it's not really a compound, it is, okay, but it's complicated. Will check sometime soon (will go into fluorine work deeper when finally I make it back to the computer).

Thanks. See http://www.fluoroseal.com/industries.html for a list of applications. See also the listing under 21 CFR above, which indicates someone went through a lot of trouble to get testing for food applications. Also see http://www.maincor.de/en/industry_fluorination.html. I have no idea how big their markets are, but there are several others I have not found.JSR (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Sandbh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Astatine, a minor question

Hello R8R Gtrs, I've added those references in response to your question on my talk page Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Another response for you Sandbh (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Elements/A-class review

I saw you created Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/A-class review. The page looks inactive now, and reviews are handled elsewhere. Can I propose to delete the page (at WT:ELEM), or is there something I didn't get? -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather say "whatever." It was an attempt to systematize the A-class rating. I would not say that half a year ago, but I'm sure now, whatever works, should stay. Just finalize an idea, set criteria, reach consensus, and do whatever you want. But common sense tells me that you should reach the A-reviews consensus first.

Well, the system given there is still in use. It's just that the reviews aren't transcluded to that page anymore. Double sharp (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Where do we see the system in use? If the system is active, and the page is stale, why need the page? I don't mind a system of striving for A-levels, I just state the page is not used. That is, the page is not relevant to the process. -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather suggest trying to incorporate it into PR process, with checking against criteria maybe. A-class is more about content than style, pic copyright, and such stuff, do it is doable (an editor could get the marker on the way to FA rather than working on it). With will of others, this might work. Still think we could need the page to keep the criteria (narrowing the goal of its existence, yet keeping). Your thoughts?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no finger in the process of reaching an A-quality. Don't know, can't help, can't stimulate. I only raised this because the page looks stale, and I asked a sort of pre-AfD advice. If the page might be usefull as you describe, then we'll keep it. Then in 6 months time I could revisit the topic. Must say, intended use is not a strong argument versus (no) actual use. Concluding, since you see a usefull existence for this page (eg for the detailed procedure description), I can leave it. -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I like your non-extreme pragmatism :) Will need to talk to the people first. If it won't work over time, I'll be fine with it deleted--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Maybe tomorrow I'll write an open question at WT:ELEM]. Or you. As I said, not a holy case but if the page is unused it might as well go. -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Astatine and element 117

Hi. In the element 117 article, you say in the second paragraph of the "Chemical" section that "The sigma bonding shows a great antibonding character in the At₂ molecule; ununseptium is predicted to continue the trend and a strong pi character should be seen in the bonding of Uus₂." But isn't it disputed if At₂ is known? So should the first sentence have a "predicted"? Iodine wouldn't be that good an example to use here (unlike the diagrams, where AtF₃ could simply be removed). Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good one, thank you. I've checked the sources, both talk about calculations on molecules X2. Could you fix it? Don't use the word "predicted," though, the section uses it too many times and that would be among thing to fix before the FAC (could take less than a month to make it a worthy FA candidate, but as you may judge from my activity, I'm too busy and my number one priority is fluorine anyway). It is why I'm asking rather than doing it myself, want a user with better English to do it. Where are you from, BTW? Are you a native speaker or just learned it that well?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to fix the issues you've pointed out with 117. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done a prose correction. I'll now ask for a peer review. Double sharp (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Think it's quite early for a review. I mean, I still know things I can (and will) fix. And I'm not sure I'll get to them soon. Not that they make much, though, I would need a couple of days to do at least most. Read the hidden comments (Ctrl+F and search for "<!--" in the editing window). If you're serious about getting this star for yourself too, consider trying to resolve them ASAP when possible. You still have some time before people get in, most likely one to two weeks. Also, read the Springer book (look among refs for a 2010 one), chapter 2, to get yourself common with the relativicity stuff if you are not, although I'd love to try the SO talk myself (tell me when it's in hurry if you won't have fixed it yourself by then). Also don't think we will need the table I used to think of. Thanks about the copy edit. Can't do myself, you know.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Well, a PR would still give some other comments. (Still, I'll try to resolve things ASAP.) Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Alkali metal

Could you give me some more comments? Thanks. Double sharp (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but no time promises. Is it in hurry? I'd set a 20% probability of me being able to do it this weekend--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Are you available now? Double sharp (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't forget about you. I'll post initial comments in an hour, will start a more detailed review on (again, maybe, but quite probably) Monday--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

My wonderful graph

Hey, over at at Ununseptium, you still did not write about that wonderful graphic I made for you? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about it two hours ago, so I decided this wasn't right and changed it at the point. And you haven't noticed?)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I got it, and changed accordingly. Still, the graphic is good enugh to be used right now. Only detail edits left. So I expect it to appear in the article. Having said this seriously, I am only anxious to see my painting in mainspace. From all this, take your time. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Element 115

Since it's the next candidate for the moscovium name and you expressed interest in working on the article, you might be interested in this discussion. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think element 117 should be ready now. Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback for Uus image

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

XX vs X₂

I want to know the difference! :-) Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's bond energy we want to write about, in that context. A halogen-halogen bond would indeed be X-X or X–X. Since bond is what the accent is on, it better to show the two atoms. X2 is a shorter notation which, in general, only says it's a molecule made of tho atoms (or functional groups) of the same kind. XX is a linear notation. I don't know if it is the way it is for you, but for X2 I think, "a halogen molecule," and that's it; and for X2 I automatically imagine the molecule actually, with bond being the central part of it. Don't know, but as you see, it highlights the bond in the linear notation for me. It also turns out I'm not the only to think in this way: I've seen that done for a purpose of bond energy calculations for several times. That's the thing.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hassium

Could you give some comments? Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, when I have enough time (have no slightest clue at the moment when this could happen).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at StringTheory11's talk page.
Message added 19:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Stability of OO9F18 Fluorine

Do you know of evidence that the atoms of OO9F18 will still spontaneously change to EE8O18 Oxygen when stored at 0 degrees Kelvin? The question is concerned with the possibility that the unstable proton of the Fluorine18 atom is paired with a neutron which would inhibit the beta emission decay mode.WFPM (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What gave you the idea that protons are paired with neutrons? They're not! Double sharp (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well the mass of the 9F18 atom is less than if they were combined, so why shouldn't they be?WFPM (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just from the nuclear binding energy. F-18 has a binding energy of about 137369 keV. Double sharp (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And if they weren't paired I'd think that you'ld have to include their individual masses in the composite mass calculation. And if you use the deuteron mass value I'd assume they were paired.WFPM (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Which is to say that I think that an alpha particle is made up of 2 combined deuterons. Do you?WFPM (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You do include their individual masses – see Nuclear binding energy. And no, I don't see an alpha particle as being made of 2 deuterons. Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I assume you start creating it with a deuteron atom at 2.014101778 and then add a neutron to get tritium at 3.016049278, which then decays to He3 at 3.016029319 and then add a neutron to 2He4 at 4.002603254, which makes the incremental neutron mass value at 4.002603254 - 3.016029319 = 0.986573935 amu. And you think that's not a paired neutron? And note that 2 deuterons add up to 2.014101778 x 2 = 4.028203556, which is 0.025600302 amu more than the 2He4 mass or 23.8 mev of binding energy. So the neutrons look paired to me, and while I pair extra neutrons with the bound neutrons all the time, I cant see the pairing of protons with each other due to the Coulombic repulsion factor.WFPM (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does that figure of 137369 Kev for the binding energy of OO9F18 come from? I cant find that anywhere? After all, we're just talking about the spontaneity of a proton's changing to a neutron as well as the energy change associated with such a process, which Nubase evaluates as being 873.7 - (-781.5) = 1653.2 Kev. But if the proton were bound with a neutron into a deuteron configuration, it would require 2224 Kev of energy to break that up. And I just cant see the availability of 2224 Kev of loose energy in an OO9F18 ground state atom at 0 degrees kelvin.WFPM (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, you're like in a heated debate I'm too dumb to take part in as an expert. I don't think it's pairing somehow (rather don't feel, can't give a hard proof). In case of deutron, I think it's more like two objects get closer to another one, without electric repulsion, the system is not too dominated by protons or neutrons, both are happy. Proton weights less than a neutron, so it's the stable one on its own. There are not many p's and n's in a system of three to affect it, I assume. In an alpha particle, there is pairing, but it's two pairs that are p-p and n-n, not (or they are just a minor contriution) p-n x2. Don't pretend I know how this happens.

About F-18: If there was such a confusion for scientists, they'd have to find it out via experimental observations. I'm not aware of such testing (if even near-zero is also good) for F-18 or whatever, don't know if such stuff exists. Still, consider that p and n should definitely decay to nn or pp under "pressure" of other p's and n's. I can't help you professionally.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay and sorry to butt in on your world; but since you were on chemistry of OO8F18, I thought you might be interested as to how it stores at 0 Degrees Kelvin. Would appreciate a reference as to how you know that paired p-p happens, and thank youWFPM (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Incidentally, I thought that OE1H3 probably decayed to EO2He3 so that the 2 protons in the atom could be kept as far apart as is possible, as well as for the 2 neutrons of OE1H3 to not be able to come into contact with each other.WFPM (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/A-class review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/A-class review, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/A-class review and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/A-class review during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wall-of-text response

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

PTQ by work needed

You may be interested in User:StringTheory11/Elements work needed table. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hey man, hope your holidays are well...and that you are doing well with family and career. I did a little work on your baby. Feel free to change/revert/etc. You know I care more about you, young man, then some web page.

By and large, think the article needs some brushing up of the logic/structure/English. On more of a para organization level.

After that it will need some nitpicking comma-chasing go-over. ("copyedit")

And the refs (you are on that).

I can't promise to come back and work on it as my new year will be busy still and I have to take care of real work first before Wiki.

P.s. Your and String's analyses of which articles to work on are very nice work.

P.s.s. For Stringie, would be interested in a version of his PTQ that showed the gradations in some sort of spectrum from green to red (think that might be even clearer). Just to look at.

TCO (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Stringie....oh...kay... Anyways, I could probably do the gradient that you suggest. I'll get to work on that now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears that {{element cell}} only takes template names (e.g. solid) as a parameter. Trying to manually adjust the color isn't working. Unfortunately, it may have to stay this way. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You can use the trick I did at Au for your PTQ:

{{element cell|79|gold      |Au||Solid|Stub|Primordial |9=#d42e4a}}

The parameter "9" defines the actual colour of the element cell. It overrides the "Stub" colour, which is then only visible in the mouseover text. Double sharp (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done, the elements are now on a color gradient. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@TCO: Thank you for your care and the tips (very useful, I was running out of ideas). Hope your holiday is/was fine as well. Do take care of your RL. I'm fine as well. Won't probably be editing for some time, but will keep an eye on things.

@ST11: For a better viewability, I'd use a dark green--light green--yellow--(orange --)red pattern. Also, I'd make FA coefficient equal to 0, just not to mess up with articles that really need work, even if none would care about those. And would it be too peaky if I say ln isn't really comfortable to use (scientists for stat purposes typically use lg)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've decreased the FA coefficient to 0.00001 so that all FAs will always appear at the bottom even if the least-viewed article (unbiquadium) reaches A-class. I still want to show that FAs are still in need of maintenance even after reaching FA, and want to show that some FAs should receive more attention than others. I honestly think that using natural log is fine, since the purpose of taking it was to simply get the values into a 0-10 range (with negative numbers corresponding to the color #01fe00) so that the values at the highest extreme (gold, magnesium, sodium, aluminium) would not end up being the only things on the red end of the spectrum. As it turned out, it ended up making it so that values above 5 represented exactly half of the articles, so it worked out well and I probably won't change that. As for the color, I'll try brightening the colors up to see if that looks better. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think more of a gradient from fluorescent green to yellow to red would be good.

Hassium

Now that Hs has passed GA, could you give me comments for reaching FA? Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm busy right now. Expect by the end of the next decade.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine etymology

I disagree with your latest edit to Fluorine as there's no place to move this information elsewhere on Wikipedia and I think etymologies are very useful. The fact that the section 'digresses' into detail about other languages is par for the course with etymologies. Thought I'd better mention it here rather than simply undo, as requested. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for contacting first. Also, thanks for following the citation template scheme. That is appreciated.

If you have anything else to add (or even if not), you can try making a new article called History of fluorine or similarly (Outline of fluorine?) and put the information into there. Then I (you're welcome to think as well if you wanna) could think if anything we have in Fluorine is excessive given we can give a link to a more detailed version of the fluorine-mankind story right under the History header. I'm sometimes scared that the article's too large and spinning some info off to new "sub-"articles is a way out. OTOH, it is so worth a read right now. We'll see. But nothing is an obstacle for a spin-off.

Also, I easily believe that the English name comes from French, but are you completely sure that the French name comes from German and not directly from Swedish? (Would make more sense this longer way, sure, but I'm not 100% convinced, and I'm almost sure there's no source for that.) You see, the fluorine article will go for a new FAC someday, and this is a "thin" place (I'd except to be questioned that if I were to review: if the Swedish-German-French-English is the path, then your proof, please? Otherwise, why's it in here at all? Why's it in here anyway, is it not too detailed elsewhere as well, ~185 KB? (there are a lotto people who will say so)). We can do that easily in a spin-off, it doesn't need to be that good. My inner me has nothing against publishing info that is not proven, but should be correct given the world we live in, if the accuracy is great, that's how all Wikis except the English one work, including their FAs and GAs (can say for sure about the German and the Russian ones, the rest should be the same or worse). But none's abused by a Start-class article, that's no chauvinism, that's how FAC works as I see it. And whichever details are to be found, they'll fit in there.

If you want to keep this fair piece of info unquestioned (by me at very least, and by everyone as well), it's a possibility.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

R8R, in all honesty I don't understand much of what you said. Perhaps you're getting me confused with one or more other editors? (Citation template scheme?!) I was just giving my 2 cents really. I do agree that huge articles like Fluorine might be better divided into several smaller articles. As far as the etymology is concerned I did find this (and hope it helps): "Fluorine 1813, non-metallic element, coined by Eng. chemist Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829) from fluorspar ("calcium fluoride," modern fluorite), the name of the mineral where it was first found, from L. fluor, originally meaning "a flowing, flow" (see fluent). The mineral name was given by Georg Agricola in 1546, translating Ger. name flusse, so called because it melts easily." Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, seems I must've mistaken you for User:Cwkmail, I'll forward the text to him. It's just so unusual when someone whose opinion is not directly asked for. (Such notes are usually left for the previous editor, as I've seen and used it.) Don't get me wrong, it's awesome that you're giving an opinion not directly asked for-- it's a way to improve things, or at least to tip someone how to do it. Fresh eyes are always helpful as long as not abusive (you're not :) Keep it on, no irony.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah.. I understand. The reason I came here was because of your edit summary, "It's a lookover article, etymology of other languages' names of a compound makes it a little bit too detailed, the article's s already very large. (Write to me to discuss if disagree)" Perhaps I should have quoted that at the top of this section. I'll bear that in mind in future. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

..Or perhaps instead of saying, "Write to me..", you should have simply said, "Discuss [on the talk page] if you disagree". That's how I roll. nagualdesign (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to see you again at WT:ELEM. I am thinking about taking some time to get Sr to GA. Unfortunately I don't have as much time as I did last year to edit :-(, but let's see how it goes. :-)

On the transactinides, I'm stopping at Hs for the moment, wanting to get it to FA first before spamming Db, Sg, and Bh. (You told me to do that too.) Since what you said to me about expecting comments from you to come at the end of next decade pretty much implies that I'm going to have to look elsewhere for a detailed review, I've opened a PR.

(P.S. Any quick comments on alkali metal? I put it on hold for the moment to spam some other articles, but will get back to it as always. After all, I've only been working on it for just over two years. :-P) Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lack of time sounds too familiar, yeah :(

Shit, I did give it a ton of looks in January, thought I had posted feedback. There were points to be concerned about, and I wrote wanted (and want) to write in detail. I'll have given more reads and posted notes by the end of the next decade March, let's see if this wording will bring us more luck :)

Your alkali metal wish is granted, though, by "quick" we mean "quick," right?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine

I've been away for a couple of days, and I'm going away again tomorrow, with luck I'll be able to look later in the week. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

f piping pic

See [2]

It probably has some chance for FP (50-50), but you will need to request a larger image (more pixels) from the doctor. Up to you. I did not want you to bug him unless it had a shot.TCO (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We'll need to crop it also, but can have Graphics Lab do that for us.TCO (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe I'll contact him at the end of the week.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Agricola pic

I think our smelting pic or perhaps one of the others would get an FP if we had sufficient quality on the upload also. They are very interesting draftsmanlike images.TCO (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I can probably get you higher resolution if you want, just specify what picture is needed (and which book it is in).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a CD that I will probably buy. Is not a big deal to me, I had a very productive year last year.TCO (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That is your thing, but just for you to know, it is easy for me. I have a djvu file. Can extract images from there. I'll upload one in an hour (probably the num one on fluorine talkpage), and then see for yourself.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked your refs

1. Cite report was good for the Energetics tech report, but not the transparency market research report. I'm NOT citing the market research report (which is confidential). Use cite web please.

2. Also, you changed the TMR url, but the new url does NOT give the $$ info. So it does not support the sentence. Need to use that url that I gave you. Please web archive it also.

3. Similarly for the MandM citation, use cite web, not cite report.

TCO (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. Also, I'm unfamiliar with web archiving, if you don't mind, describe in in short in here (although I may later, not today definitely, just google it up).

Here is a url: [3]. See also [4]. It explains how to do it. I have done it before, but it is a piece of detail I avoid now. It should be done any time you have a cite web citation (iow a webcite) because pages on the web are often deleted. It gives a backup (it's not perfect as people can ask for the web citation to be deleted if they want...but the main thing is it just archives web pages that get abandoned). There is a parameter in cite web called "archive" (use that for the url of the WebCite saved copy of the webpage.) You can get others to do it for you also (e.g. User:Suncreator, User:Materialscientist, Help Desk) who are more technical. I think there is an alternative vendor than WebCite also, but I can't recall.

Also, note you should not archive every url, just the purely online sources. For example, if we cite the New York Times and also give a url, that url is just for convenience! The actual citation is to the dead tree version. (same with a book, a formal technical report, a thesis, etc.) It is frowned on to archive the convenience links since it cruftifies the endnotes.

P.s. Thanks for your help. I really hate these cite templates. They are hard for me to work with (hurt my eyes and seem like a waste of my time). I think for my next article, I will just type out footnotes in AP (or MLA or whatever) style. Think it will be faster, more accurate (it forces you to check yourself more than the "black box"), and help page load. Let's leave this article as is, though. When we get close, we will need to do the whole massive format polishing. If you can get Nikki to just do it instead of critiquing that would be good. Otherwise, it will need to be you and others you can scrounge up.

No big deal. I was scared of them at the beginning, but when I still didn't have you, I figured out (had to) how they work. I still don't feel the subtleties like those you corrected me just above (understand in principle now, but not sure if I'll find out I'm doing something tricky the next time), but I know all the technicalities. If I just had a list of errors and mistakes with refs, I could fix them. The problem would be to find them, not to fix. Anyway, call me for the alternative citing party.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You da best. I'm not sure if you will get any cavitation from the FA screws. You may not. Just keep your head low. I'm not trying to do anything sneaky. If anything I am trying to make sure we are very explicit, by not claiming we read a report that we did not. You may still get some kvetching from the "it looks different from what I know therefore it must be wrong", but in any case, I know we are right and honest. And don't borrow trouble, maybe it does not come up. And we are dehfunitely helping the reader by giving important scoping information.TCO (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)