User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 4 (End Oct 2007)

Tan Cheng Han

your basis of asserting non-notability is? my arguments to the contrary are well-stated in the article itself. dean of the only law school in Singapore, specialist judge, senior counsel, all of which are important if not sui generis positions in the local legal fraternity. a google search isn't unsatisfactory by WP standards too IMO.

to be sure, i'm not arguing that each appointment per se makes for noteworthiness. but i have to point out the fact that elsewhere in WP, such appointments per se, without more in some instances, have passed noteworthiness. for senior counsels (similar, if not equivalent to, Queen's Counsel), see this. for deans of law schools, see this. moreover, Tan is an established academic. lastly, we have articles on most of our Supreme Court judges, although a specialist judge may not sit on the Supreme Court. thanks.

addendum: i can't provide you the online cite since archives of Straits Times online is now via paid subscription, but Tan was named a couple of years ago as one of the most powerful people in Singapore aged under 40.

therefore, if the article suffers from a lack of notability it is only because it may not be clear enough, but not from an intrinsic lack of? am i right to say this is your view if you accept my arguments. Chensiyuan 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The exact criteria for notability can be found here. I notice that one of th middle paragraphs is plagiarized from this page listed. People come and people go in appointments such as dean, and I'd not consider them inherently notable. In any case, I think a few third party mentions, i.e. not from NUS, are necessary. ST sources are fine. I (and anyone else) can read them by Lexis-Nexis. --Rifleman 82 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

so your point is? i've said the collectivity of the portfolios establishes notability, what is your reply to that? the "plagiarism" contention can be easily overcome by attribution. lastly, all but a couple of the 6 sources are from Sraits Times (in pdf, if you open the link) although the url is from nus law. thanks. Chensiyuan 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is, and has always been, that being dean itself is not inherently notable. However, setting aside my misgivings, I have suggested that if you feel strongly otherwise, you should give more citations. And since you've been around Wikipedia awhile, why not cite them properly? Using {{cite news}} for example?

didn't do it back then cos was in a middle of something. since you've done it, thanks. so what else do you think lacks notability? what do you make of the google results, which is often used as a loose yardstick for establishing notability.

I don't understand why you are trying to split hairs about "plagiarism" (your quotation marks, not mine). Either it is or it isn't; seeing that it is (or nearly is) word-for-word from the NUS site, I find it hard to describe it otherwise. --Rifleman 82 06:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

not terribly important to go into semantics, my point was it can be overcome by attribution. i inserted the quotation marks because you framed it as such. Chensiyuan 08:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for sorting out my picture of a Kugelrohr. It looks great now. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:DMPS.PNG

You listed this image as moved to Commons, but you provided a file name to a non-existant article. If you would look into this matter and restore the template with the proper replacement file name, I'll go ahead and remove it. Thanks. Rklawton 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for that. I must have screwed up the name. I've fixed it on image:DMPS.PNG now. --Rifleman 82 13:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblock

Do you know if you are normally blocked by a direct block on the IP address or rather, because of an autoblock on a blocked account? I can explain the differences if you aren't clear. One is fairly easy to fix but the other is much harder. --Yamla 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The block notice shows that it is for autoblock of a blocked account. --Rifleman 82 17:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was worried about that. When we block an account, we by default also block the IP address they are using. That way, they can't turn around and set up a new account and immediately resume vandalising. Due to privacy concerns, most administrators do not have any indication what IP addres you are editing from when we block you which means there's no way to stop these autoblocks from hitting you. However, it is possible that if you instead point your browser to this secure address, you won't be affected by the autoblock. I am not sure this is the case, however. The other alternative is to contact your ISP and see if there's any way to disable your use of their proxy server. This would likely be a better alternative but some ISPs do not permit you to skip this. I'm sorry I don't have better news for you. --Yamla 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou--Willemhenskens 08:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for uploading the mechanism for the Friedel-Crafts reactions. I was studying for chemistry and trying to understand this mech, but couldn't find it on Wikipedia--which was a great disappointment because I like to think that Wikip. has everything! So I uploaded my (tacky) version of the mech for others--it's nice to see the neater diagram. If you have any suggestions as to programs that are good for drawing such mechanisms, could you please leave a comment on my User:talk page? Thanks! --Willemhenskens 08:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Spaces in chemical names

Regarding your edit comment "added spaces in the name. I wonder if it's really important... or it's there to prove a point about how long you can name a chemical" to Grubbs' catalyst, Edgar181 and I were just talking about this issue. DMacks 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No <math>

Thanks, i didn't know how to do the HTML equivalent until today :-) ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah... you're very welcome. We all learn by example. --Rifleman 82 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Chemical engineering topics

Thanks for the note, I was thinking some of the same things, and I tried to avoid categorizing all of the articles that didn't fit (sorry if I missed a few). I left a bit of a note on the category's talk page also; if people decide the category is unnecessary or anything, I'll help revert it. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 19:07, April 9, 2007 (UTC)

Why delete Claud Wintner's Lectures?

Rifleman,

Professor Wintner's organic chemistry lectures are a great online organic chemistry course. If you look at Professor Wintner's Bio here: http://www.haverford.edu/wintnerorganicchem/Biography.pdf you will see that he is a distinguished professor of Chemistry. If you could write on the talk page for the article why you feel that they are an inappropriate external link I would appreciate it. --Geddes Έ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.82.28.16 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry about that. I was reverting the addition to the category:Chemical engineering topics. Your edit came after the addition of that category, and when I reverted using popups, it removed your link. I've restored it, though I wonder about the size of the external links. --Rifleman 82 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass Spectrometry as a Spectroscopy Technique

I agree that mass spectrometry is not a spectroscopy, although it sometimes gets included as a spectroscopy for the sake of convenience. I assumed that the latter was occurring since mass spectrometry is listed under Spectroscopy#Nature_of_radiation_measured, is a subcategory of Category:Spectroscopy, and is listed on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spectroscopy. There is some inconclusive debate on the Talk:Spectroscopy page. For consistency, do you suggest removing the Spectroscopy category from Category:Mass spectrometry and modifying the Spectroscopy article? --Kkmurray 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Endnote WikiChem 1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Endnote WikiChem 1.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:1,3-dibromopropane.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1,3-dibromopropane.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Isilanes 12:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: IFD of Image:1,2-dibromopropane.gif

• Hi, Rifleman 82. I IFD'd this image yesterday, and today I'm revising my IFDs, just in case I was unjust with some. However, in the case of this image, I can not remove the IFD, because it is a GIF, and they are discouraged. You are welcome to upload a PNG image (and not have it deleted :^), but I don't think the GIF should be kept. — Isilanes 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:X-ray crystallography

Thanks for stating the obvious. X-ray crystallography is a major field, not simply the study of the structure of organic mollecules. I'll find the right tag for the article, to warn the reader that it is only a partial article, or I'll rename it. When I get a moment. KP Botany 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry citation templates

I'll get my reply in before you notice that many of the templates in Category:Chemistry citation templates are not consistent with Wikipedia:Citation templates. This is because of their age: I will get round to fixing them soon, but I wanted to make sure they were properly categorized first so that others can find them! Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image image:Chiral.jpeg

I have IfDed the image image:Chiral.jpeg, and noticed you are using it. I'd like to let you know that there is a SVG version of the image (allegedly an improvement), at image:Chiral.svg. Please use that one instead, or in case you prefer the JPEG, object to its deletion at its deletion page. Thanks. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 19:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. That's just my sandbox. --Rifleman 82 00:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

LexisNexis

Thanks for e-mailing me all the newspaper articles about Xiaxue which you found through LexisNexis! After re-writing Xiaxue and getting I Not Stupid to GA status, I will continue writing articles on Singapore-related topics. When I need newspaper articles to do research, would you be willing to search for them through LexisNexis and e-mail them to me? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. --Rifleman 82 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Gosh, this is good stuff! I wished I had access to LexisNexis because I had such pains trying to find paper sources. May require some assistance from you when I have the time to go back writing, say NKF scandal again. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know what you need. --Rifleman 82 23:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Where the top is

• edit

It's at the other end. ☺ Uncle G 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sodium acetate reversion

You have recently reverted my edit at sodium acetate. Please explain why you did this. --Freiddie 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate your effort. But I'd like to make another edit unrelated to the 'ethanoate'. If you'd like, you can sodium_acetate check if it's appropriate. I converted them into American English mostly because of the 'sulfuric' at the top, as according to Wikipedian standards, which state that the type of English used must be consistent throughout a page. --Freiddie 10:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DMF on the radio

I heard a mention of "DMF"(!) as a biofuel, looked on Wiki and found your new article- Excellent work! Axiosaurus 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I heard it too on the BBC on the way to work today. Then there was a speedy deletion reported at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals, and the rest you have seen. =) --Rifleman 82

Hapticity

Lately, I've been trying to tag all chemistry articles that I edit with {{chemistry}} or {{chemicals}} if they don't have it already. I'm fairly new to assessments, so feel free to change any of them as you see fit, as you did with hapticity - I don't mind at all. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've been doing it with with varying vigor too. Mostly for those with red talk tabs. I have no illusions that my opinions are definitive either, so I guess the ratings are a bit of a consensus than anything else. Cheers! --Rifleman 82 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dichloromethane edits

Hi, I noticed that you deleted ChemicalSources template from dichloromethane and marked it as obsolete. I was about to add this template today to some halomethanes, on which I work. So is it better if I don't add it? And also what about similar compounds in see also? Why shouldn't be they there? I capitalize each synonym in chembox and as I see, you changed it. What about that? Finally I have some other questions. What do you think about adding mixed halomethanes, e.g. bromofluoromethane to both organobromides and organofluorides? I don't think, it should be used. And is good to put halomethane to corresponding halogen compound category (fluoromethane to fluorine compound)? I'd not use it again. I ask, because it is used in some articles and what to do about it. Thanks. Tomaxer 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it isn't going anywhere. I usually delete it on sight, and the community of chemists haven't complained yet. Before I run it through with AWB, I will discuss it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry.

I say that this template is obsolete because {{chembox new}} is configured such that when the CAS number parameter is filled in, it will display an external link which shows the search result of this cas number. {{ChemicalSources}} was supposed to reference the cas number, but in the first place, most cas numbers in the various chemboxes are not configured. Secondly, even when they are, clicking on it leads no where.

Strictly, if a term with a wiklink has been mentioned in the article even once, it should not belong in "See also". As a practical matter, sometimes the link may be buried in a large amount of text and it is helpful. With specific reference to related chemicals - using the appropriate parameter in the chembox for related compounds will be preferable.

Capitalization about synonyms... I thought it looked better that way. If you disagree, please revert that to your preference.

What do you think about adding mixed halomethanes, e.g. bromofluoromethane to both organobromides and organofluorides? I don't think, it should be used. And is good to put halomethane to corresponding halogen compound category (fluoromethane to fluorine compound)?

Could you please elaborate? I'm not sure about what you are talking about. --Rifleman 82 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I agree with removing ChemicalSources. About that chembox, I use chembox new. Does also this chembox contain such entry for related compounds? About capitalization: I have no strict attitude, so I think it can stay this way. Mixed halomethanes to all organo-X-ides: E.g. you have bromofluoromethane. In my opinion, it is better to add it only in organohalides, instead of adding it to organobromides and to organofluorides category. It is the most common practice. What do you think? Putting halomethane to X compound: I mean adding e.g. mentioned fluoromethane to category fluorine compounds. Such thing is only done in fluoromethane and dibromomethane among all halomethane articles. I think that it should not be done, because under fluorine compounds are listed inorganic compounds and halomethanes should not be there, although they are on the border of it. Tomaxer 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See here. In particular,

| Section8 = {{Chembox Related | OtherAnions = | OtherCations = | OtherFunctn = | Function = | OtherCpds = }} }}

I have no opinion with regard to the categories question. On one hand, there is merit in putting it in "organohalides"; on the other hand, you can put it in both categories and it still makes sense. Sorry I'm not of much help.--Rifleman 82 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot that there is such entry, because I don't use it. And about that categories, I'll do it as I said then. Tomaxer 17:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Lim U Yang

Quite a senior SAF personnel so I added him in. Cibwins 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Benzophenone_bottle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Benzophenone_bottle.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Dr. Walter Reppe ca. 1968.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr. Walter Reppe ca. 1968.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please search LexisNexis for articles on Megan Zheng and Homerun.

Thanks for your willingness to e-mail me LexisNexis articles upon my request. After nominating I Not Stupid for GA on 15 July, I intend to expand Megan Zheng and nominate it for DYK, as well as to expand and improve Homerun (film). Could you search LexisNexis for newspaper articles on Megan Zheng and Homerun, and e-mail them to me? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WORK :-)

Hi Rifleman 82, thanks for spamming my watchlist with the bot (heh, it needs to be done ..). Good work! But I have another possible task. I have, a long, long time ago, asked user:BetacommandBot to tag the talkpages of articles with the {{chemicals}} (i.e., a retag from {{chemistry}} if that is there, or a tag if there is no such template). But since I have been waiting for a long time for that, and your bot is just what we need .. could you perform that task? The request is here (it is a bit more complicated than just removing {{ChemicalSources}}). Hope to hear more (I guess I will have to wait until you have a bot-bit, give me a sign, and I will nag a BAG member for you). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm running it right now. My AWB rule is for {{chemistry to be replaced by {{chemicals. That should mean that all importance and class tags remain. I've passed > 1000 without hitting any {{chemistry}} tags though. Let's see how it goes.

As for adding the tag when there is no such template, I'll try it out later.

Glad you like the bot. --Rifleman 82 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran through that list, and I didn't see anything with {{chemistry. Are there any left? --Rifleman 82 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - and more suggestions for the bot

Thank you for tagging all those articles with {{WikiProject Pharmacology}}. I have a couple of other suggestions for tagging with {{chemicals}}, if it isn't too much trouble:

1. Tagging with {{chemicals}} all articles that contain some form of the various chemboxes (chembox, chembox new, chembox simple organic, etc.) whether transcluded or substituted. The substituted ones can probably be found as articles that transclude {{chembox header}}.
2. Tagging with {{chemicals}} all articles in Category:Organic compound stubs and Category:Inorganic compound stubs. A quick sampling I did showed that most articles in those categories are already tagged, but not all.

Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it over the next few days (I suspect it will take a while). Incidentally, I've done that for those in category:chemical reactions in articles titles containing "(chemistry)" and already. --Rifleman 82 01:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, no hurry. I noticed that tagging of chemical reactions - that's probably what sparked this suggestion. Thanks again. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up p-xylene

I glad you got to that article before I did. I've got enough other things to do, but that p-xylene article bothered me. Thanks again.Silverchemist 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help. --Rifleman 82 06:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Basic functional groups

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Basic functional groups, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Basic functional groups fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

talk page of blank article

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Basic functional groups, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Chemicals templates.

After returning from my holiday I was looking at the statistics, and I see that now a huge number of pages have been indexed with the {{chemicals}}. Thanks for all the good work. There still seems to be a discrepancy between the number now indexed (4146) and the number of chemicals on this list (4754). Maybe some work for a final run? Again, thanks for the hard work, and hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re drugbox

Hey there. I've replied to your comment on Template talk:Drugbox. Sorry for taking so long, but my Watchlist is growing a bit too long ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'll try to take a wikibreak over the next few days, so don't take it personally if I take even longer to reply to anything... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rifleman, you may or may not have noticed I'm pretty much back :) Anyway, I'd like to hear your opinion on going ahead with {{drugbox-combo}}. I do agree with you regarding a chembox/drugbox/explosivebox merge, but I also think, as I've said, a combo drugbox would be an excellent short-term solution. What do you think? You're one of our most valuable chem editors, and I'd hate to simply tread all over your opinion. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fvasconcellos

Thank you for your confidence.

I think that the ultimate goal should be a unified {{chembox new}}.

If {{drugbox-combo}} is able to solve our immediate problems, I think we should go for it. But let's emphasize that it is an interim solution, and not have it take a life of its own like the {{OrganicBox small}}.

Once this little project is implemented in its entirety, would you care to support me in raising the issue of the unified {{chembox new}} to the chem, drug, explosive people? This issue has been dragging along quite a while anyway. --Rifleman 82 02:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I would, however, like to hear a bit more on the benefits of unifying all the compound infoboxes; in all honesty it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me—I find the {{drugbox}} syntax clearer, and its design somewhat more organized. In my personal opinion, an ideal unified template would have the same syntax regardless of the type (say, all the fields of chembox new} and produce a different appearance according to the specified type (drug, chemical, explosive etc.) I don't even think that's possible right now, not to mention the implementation nightmare... :) Where do you think we could create a centered discussion? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it seems counterintuitive. I feel very strongly that drugs, explosives, etc. including the building blocks I get from Sigma Aldrich are all chemicals first and foremost. Chemical properties are universal and unchanging - formula, mw, cas/smiles/inchi/pubchem.

These are the basics which should exist in all of these boxes, and they should be held constant. Drug and explosive properties can be filled into {{chembox new}} as required. This way, we have a consistent look and feel across all chemical substance pages. Pretty much what (consistency) is desired in the manual of style.

An example with reference to consistency is the external links derived from the CAS number. Chembox new links CAS to emolecules, and drugbox and organicbox links to NIH. Since NIH is by no means exhaustively complete, maybe this is not a good idea? emolecules provides links to pubchem anyway.

If you have specific questions, I might be able to give you a better answer? --Rifleman 82 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, each template linking CAS to different sources is certainly not productive. Chemical properties do exist in each of these templates; I'm still not convinced that all chemicals should be presented equally without consideration (OK, poor choice of words :) for their most significant use. Surely the medical relevance of compounds used primarily as pharmaceuticals warrants a separate presentation which highlights this relevance? I sincerely apologize if I'm misinterpreting you, by the way. Sorry for still being so stubborn; maybe I'll see the light tomorrow :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Chem-awb

I've approved this bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chem-awb, and authorized a bot flag, though I'm not sure if it's still active. If you don't need it, disregard. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks a lot. It is not active at this very moment, but will carry out various tasks for Wiki Chem as needed. --Rifleman 82 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Monosodium glutamate edit

Your recent revert of Monosodium glutamate restored a section of text that had been removed, probably by vandals. But a subsequent useful edit was also lost in the revert. Sakkura 21:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Woops, on closer inspection the only vandalous edit was the one immediately prior to your revert. You could have just reverted that one edit, instead of including the few ones before it. Sakkura 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new

I've only just noticed your edit about merging chembox new, drugbox and explosivebox. In fact, chembox new already contains the fields from drugbox and explosivebox, this is one of the things which I did when I wrote it. We don't tend to replace drugboxes with chemboxes, as there is rarely enough new info which can be added: however for cases like lithium carbonate or nitrous oxide, we can include all the drugbox info in a chembox without to much trouble. Physchim62 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I didn't phrase it well that time. I am aware that explosivebox and drugbox are present in chembox new; what I intended to say was that drugbox and explosivebox should be merged into chembox new, with the appropriate information in the drugbox/explosivebox sections. That said, we probably need their wikiprojects' consensus/consent before we even think of doing that.

To reiterate my point, I think all chemical substances should use chembox new for consistency because they are first and foremost chemicals, and explosives/drugs/building blocks second. It is difficult to truly delineate the boundaries, isn't it? Case in point is benzimidazole, which I alkylated and turned into a carbene complex many times. A building block, but it has a drugbox? --Rifleman 82 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a {{OrganicBox small}}, which...actually, I don't quite know what it is for :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I thought it was a drugbox from the basis of its color scheme. Anyway, yeah, one more inconsistency??? --Rifleman 82 02:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for linking refs on Chia Thye Poh

That bit always strains my brain a bit(too much). Next I'm trying to track down a free image that's a photo of him.NonlisteningFriend 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Being you're Singaporean have you much idea what he's been up to since '98, beyond what's established in the article? I'm thinking along the lines of speeches he may have given in Singapore or in Europe.NonlisteningFriend 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I thought I might ask you if you could refer me to a tutorial that explains how to do the linking (grouping together) of references. I know know to do the <ref>link</ref> bit, but I've been looking for something that explains how to use <ref name = whatever>, for example.NonlisteningFriend 12:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can take a look here. Hope it helps. --Rifleman 82 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you careful work

I have probably thanked you previously, but once again: thank you for your help and patience with many chemical articles that we have collaborated on.--Smokefoot 03:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for thanks, but I appreciate your thoughts. Happy editing! --Rifleman 82 05:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Polyurethane

Hello: I'd appreciate you taking a look at the Polyurethane article and giving me some feedback and suggestions. I'd like to get this article out of the start class ASAP. Thanks in advance.P Cottontail 03:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Best Regards,

Krytox

It is a bit of a stretch, but it is said to have been patented by DuPont, and is in the Category:DuPont. DuPont is, of course, probably the biggest single employer in the state of Delaware, not including corporate lawyers. I more or less tagged all the articles within that category which seem to be associated with Delaware with the tag, hoping that the other members, who might actually live there (I don't), in the hope that maybe they could produce some data for the article. If, of course, you want to remove ithe banner, I honestly don't think anyone else would necessarily notice, so there probably wouldn't be any complications arising. John Carter 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That question

I could have sworn you were an admin. Why aren't you? :D Not interested? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register

Hello, Rifleman 82! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

RJFJR 03:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

==Image tagging for Image:Col._William_Wood.jpg==

Thanks for uploading Image:Col._William_Wood.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IUPAC Green Book (cover).jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Diethyl ether

Thanks for fixing that reference. I guess I was trying to do things too quickly. Silverchemist 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I was of help. --Rifleman 82 06:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keck clips

I just wanted to let you know that per your request I added a photo of Keck clips to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I have left a comment for you and Dirk at his talk page here. Thanks for doing all the chembox updates. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help with "Singapore Constitution" template

Hi, thanks for helping to update articles with the updated {{Singapore Statute}} template. This is the first time I've tried to edit a template. It nearly drove me up the wall, but I'm pleased with the results. Please feel free to clean up the template, if you think it's necessary, as I'm still not entirely sure how all the different elements of the template work. (The article "Help:Template" is chock-a-block with jargon and I can't make head or tail of it.)

If you have time, I could do with some help with a new template that I am trying (unsuccessfully) to create: {{Singapore Constitution}}. My purpose is to create a template similar to {{Singapore Statute}} to display a link to the online version of the Singapore Constitution. I would like to use the syntax "{{Singapore Constitution|full=|rep=}}", the purpose of the "full" parameter, which is intended to take a "yes" or "no" value, being to enable users to indicate whether they would like the full title of the Constitution ("Constitution of the Republic of Singapore") or an abbreviated title ("Singapore Constitution") to be displayed. (Perhaps there's a better way of doing that?) However, I'm obviously doing something wrong as the template doesn't work. Cheers, Jacklee 12:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No luck so far, I'll try again later. --Rifleman 82 13:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Ethanol

I appreciate your acknowledgment. Thanks. As noted by the GA reviewer, this article still needs work. I plan to try to make some more improvement this weekend. I hope I can recruit others to collaborate bringing this article back to GA standards. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Help on Fuchsine?

Howdy, I noticed you made an edit to Fuchsine's page earlier. You seem to know the field well, and wondered if you could double-check the current info, or just give me a pointer (book title, website) in Talk:Fuchsine#Chemical_formula.2C_molecular_diagram.2C_etc.. My chemistry knowledge is limited, and I came to the article interested in the history of the dye, but I think something is wrong or unclear on that page. -Agyle 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not my field but I'll see what I can do later.--Rifleman 82 00:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}}

{{Unreferenced}} should be used only on articles that have no sources (references or external links). The {{Refimprove}} template is appropriate for articles with some sources but not enough. {{Unreferencedsect}} , {{Primarysources}}, or {{Citations}} may also work well for your purposes. Please adjust User:Chem-awb to use a more appropriate template. Thanks--BirgitteSB 17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. Sorry about the trouble, thanks for the explanation. --Rifleman 82 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Benedict's reagent

Reverting edits is what we do for obvious vandalism. I think you should revert yourself and concentrate on improving the article. There is nothing wrong with explaining how a chemical reagent can be used. --JWSchmidt 17:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't the only reason for reverts. Reverts can and often are used for various edits including good faith edits which do not meet article guidelines, style guides, or which are inappropriate.

The article currently does explain how the reagent works, but per WP:NOT, it should not include a cookbook (i.e. the "recipe" for Benedict's, which I previously removed), nor should it include step by step instructions on the use of this reagent.

Once again, if you disagree with my revert, take it up on Talk:Benedict's reagent. I messaged you as a courtesy, or as an FYI. It was not an invitation to discuss it at my talk or yours. I hope you see my point of view. --Rifleman 82 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Solubility in Chembox cleanup

Your awb-bot User:Chem-awb removed the solubility information when doing cleanup on resveratrol, see here. 193.171.121.30 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi anon

Sorry about that. Thanks for the heads up. --Rifleman 82 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:Chem-awb

All fixed

God knows how some of that happend... I wouldnt like to guess!

Should work fine now

Sorry for the inconvience!

Reedy Boy 11:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Leu-enkephalin

The infobox is so complete that it contains the essential information, and can stand on its own as a stub. It's one of the paradoxes of infoboxes in some cases--there are a few other subjects where that is possible. I'll ask one of the people who does similar compounds to get it to look right. You might want to discuss what to do with such articles at the workgroup. I believe their practice is to permit them as stubs. DGG (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

in fact, I'm asking there about this problem right now, and asking someone to fix these two. It seems the sensible way to deal with it rather than to argue. . DGG (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking discuss, rather than argue. But the two articles look much better now, and I would have no objections as they stand. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Lithium chloride

The template didn't show up correctly. See this--Simon Shek 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :)--Simon Shek 03:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:SAFTI_logo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SAFTI_logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome some feedback

Hello, my name is Isucheme and I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article on the Churchill-Bernstein Equation. The equation is used to find an average (convection) heat transfer coefficient to use in Newton’s Law of cooling for a cylinder in cross flow, and the mass transfer analogy, as described in the article, can be employed to find a mass transfer coefficient. I would appreciate any feed back you can give me on my article so I can make it a great article. Thank you. 19:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Isucheme

N-Acetyltalosaminuronic acid

That was fast. Thanks! --EncycloPetey 07:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

re: {{Chembox new}}

My apologies, it should be okay now. Aran|heru|nar 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Various

• Thanks for the note on the air pollution enthusiasts. I also wish that they edit something they understand, but that's life.
• Regarding Inorg. Synth.: Usually in journals, it is cited like a journal. I dont know why but this trandition has long been followed in journals. Org Syn is treated similarly, the editor is rarely mentioned. --Smokefoot 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page.

The only reason I reverted the article, was because I saw this. Looks like it's fixed now, good job! LinguistAtLarge 04:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I'd already fixed it before you reverted. It happens to me sometimes too. --Rifleman 82 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ChemBox issues

Dear RM: I dont know much about chembox formatting. But maybe you cannot help. I would like to remove the image from Holmium(III) oxide which is erroneous. I do not understand why I cannot see (or edit) the image file. My browser? Also I cannot change the header on Hafnium(IV) chloride's table. Maybe you can advise me.--Smokefoot 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

May I stick my nose in? Caught this on my watchlist (watching Rifleman's page in case he's hit by another autoblock). When an image file with the exact same name as the article is available, it will automatically be used in the chembox, whether the | image = parameter is present or not. As for Hafnium(IV) chloride, the | name = parameter is duplicated; just remove the second one and edit the first. Hope I could be of assistance. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fvas for your comments. I think you've answered Smokefoot's questions. Thanks too for watching out for me :)

{{Chembox new | ImageFile = Zirconium-tetrachloride-3D-balls-A.png | ImageSize = | Name = Hafnium(IV) chloride | IUPACName = Hafnium(IV) chloride<br />Hafnium tetrachloride <s>| Name = Supplementary data</s> | Section1 = {{Chembox Identifiers | CASNo = 13499-05-3 ...

I've fixed it by removing the line striked out above. When a parameter is defined a few times, the last parameter is used. Hope this helps. --Rifleman 82 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)