User talk:Plasmic Physics/Archive 5

Bis(trimethylsilyl)acetamide
Hello Plasmic Physics. If I'm reading the history correctly, you edited Bis(trimethylsilyl)acetamide to suggest a move to a new article title here, because the current one is ambiguous. Can you elaborate on the ambiguity? Thanks! Scientific29 (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a long time ago. If I remember correctly, it's because the points of attachment of the silyl groups to the acetamide structure is not descernable from the title. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I thought that that would be talking about a compound with the two TMS groups both on the nitrogen (hence, N,N-bis(trimethylsilyl)acetamide .. like N,N-dimethylformamide, often abbreviated as DMF or dimethylformamide. I think that is where the possible confusion is, and that should be resolved.  Is this maybe better at N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)acetamide?  Don't know, maybe this is the common way of addressing this compound, and the current pagename is correct, but the intro should then clearly say that (and maybe name why this name is not reffering to the N,N-variety - does that compound maybe not exist and rearrange to the N,O-isomer?).  Otherwise, move this to the N,O-pagename, and leave this as a redirect there, and disambiguate with the N,N variety - if there is common confusion, move this to the N,O, make the redirect a disambig to both N,O and N,N.  So I agree that there is ambiguity here, but we need to have a look at proper naming.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scandium trihydride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dirac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of rollback
Rollback can't be used to revert non-vandalism edits, as you did here. Whoop isn't going to like this; how is this going to help solve the dispute w/ him?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * He continues to confuse the article content, even after it was noted/rectified. I was not instructed on what rollback was intented for, I assumed that it was no more than an instant revert which restores the last version not editted by the user. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:Rollback.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. He wasn't vandalising.
 * However, he is on the verge of becoming a nuisence editor by the nature of his edits to these articles. He tends to prematurely edit articles based on incorrect intell, and misguided motives. For example, when he was informed that when he confused the mercury monohydride for the dihydride in the original article, he refused to settle and responded by creating seperate articles for both. That is fine, but he went no further than to duplicate the content for each.
 * It is not ideal for Wikipedia to have an article on every existing compound, only on every notable compound. It does not help Wikipedia when edits are of a spitefull nature, users should be more cooperative in their edits. If that were so, this would be a much more harmonious, community. It may be a good idea to monitor his chemistry related edits. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel Whoop whoop pull-up is being a nuisance, keep discussing it. I don't believe rollback is appropriate for any of his edits, but you should try to discuss all problems you have with him on his talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mercury(I) hydride is Hg2H2, or dimercurane. HgH is the mercuranyl radical. Create an article for it if you like it so much. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 02:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Iowafromiowa
I've reverted your edit there. Wikipedia is not the place for such advocacy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Iowafromiowa reserves the right to monitor his own user talk page, let him remove/retain my post. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, they are indef blocked so it isn't likely to be high on their list of priorities, but regardless of where it was posted such comments, dispariging a particualr group and attempting to discourage a user from joining it, have no place whatsoever on this project. This isn't a forum for you to post your views about the Masons. And before anyone even goes there, no I am not one of them and have no association whatsoever with their organization. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you just voicing your own opinion, or is there a rule which specifically precludes such comments? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADVOCATE would seem to apply here. Look at it this way: if instead of Masons, your comments were about Jews, would that be OK? Obviously not. The same principle applies no matter whose belief system you are attacking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After reading it, WP:NOTADVOCATE does not appear to be extend to user talk pages. My comments aren't entirely true when used in the context of the jewish faith.
 * If you know someone is planning to pack their own fireworks, after seeing it done online, would you not feel compelled to warn them? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a terrible analogy since doing something that any reasonable person, regardless of their faith, could agree was foolish and dangerous is obviously not the same thing as telling someone not to join an organization you don't happen to like. You seemed to have missed some of the meat of NOTADVOCATE as well, so I will reproduce the section I was attempting to bring to your attention here, with bolding added to the pertinent words: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. I hope this clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Analogy aside, I see I missed this part. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chromium(I) hydride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dipole moment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Carbonous acid / Dihydroxymethylidene
Hi, I collect oxocarbons and oxocarbon anions as a hobby 8-) and enjoyed your page on dihydroxymethylidene/carbonous acid. However, Google cannot find a decent reference for either name, only old papers that use "carbonous acid" for the isomer formic acid. Do you know of one? Thanks.. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Appologies, no I do not know of one. I collect chemicals as well, mostly metals. I'm an electrochemical metalurgy enthusiast, although I make the occasional acid. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Methylene ground state
About methylene's molecular pics: OK, I will leave only the triplet images in the chembox. (That's yet another reason why chemboxes are evil. Consistency of style across articles has very little value for readers in general; they generally come to Wikipedia for information, not beauty.  Chemboxes force editors to waste time on it, even when doing so makes the article worse for readers...)  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, combining information on different in that way may confuse the layman reader when they expect a certain style. Chemboxes could also become cluttered. I love to waste my time on maintaining chemboxes, that is my other hobby. However, a disagreement on method and consistent style amongst the Chem Project has resulted in me being swept under the rug in a manner of speaking. It seems that banning an enthusiastic editor is easier than addressing the issues raised by edits made in good faith. You're doing good work. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Chromium(I) hydride
Hi, on your split of the molecular species to Chromium(I) hydride, it seems that this new name is original research, and almost all authors just call the diatomic molecule Chromium hydride or CrH. A similar situation applies to iron hydride which has a solid and liquid phase under great pressure, and a gas form under high temperature. Perhaps the phase diagram meets at a high enough temperature, But normally if it is under greater concentration the liquid metal will condense giving off hydrogen gas. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sadly, many authors make the mistake of just copying from each other. The "Chromium hydride" from one article is not the same as the "Chromium hydride" from the other. It is not an unreasonable move. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not too stressed about the demerge, and it looks like some kind of official name, just that no one uses it in academic journals. So if the name is challenged by someone we will have to go back to the WP:Commonname.  I am looking forward to a manganese hydride hydride article too! If if feel like writing it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, if the name is challenged... though I doubt it. If you're looking for some research material of metal hydrides, Lester Andrews et al is an excellent starting point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How about something exotic, like Gold(I) hydride? I've already started Mercury(I) hydride, and Mercury(II) hydride. I didn't really want the former but Whoop Whoop insisted on creating it himself. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have split off Chromium(II) hydride as a separate article, as the I article was turning into an account of all the molecular hydrides. I still think we need more about the dimer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (I only covered the dihydride.) I'll gather more information on the II. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On your HgH it has inconsistent facts with the HgH2 article. In the latter it says it can be formed by decomposition at -124°C which is way about the 6K and only in inert gas matrix. Also under what circumstances are these gases?  In a matrix it would be solid, and the white solid HgH2 does not sound like a gas either.  Is there any vapour pressure or sublimation or boiling point data? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between MHgH2 and HgH2? The key word is "isolate", HgH has been isolated in cryo, but it is detectable in the gas phase at higher temperatures. Based on the standard entropies supplied by NIST, they should be gases at STP - -134 C is not at STP. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry the leading M was a typo, M for Mercury (not). I suppose they just need more facts and more research. Hg2H2 will need an article too some time. Have you got any references for non-classical iron hydrides?  My original motivation for writing those articles was to document molecules found in stars.  My other project was to write about all the molecules  found as gases at STP.  Some of the molecules however like sufanyl react with each other at that sort of density, so they are not really stable gases, just like I expect the HgH gas to be.  Perhaps HgH at standard temperatures would spontaneously break up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I like your enthusiasm, just remember not every trivial molcule deserves an article. I know that is less stable than two individual HgH molecules. Here's a link to an article by Andrews et al . Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What about CO21?
The references about the carbonite anion also mention the detection of a monovalent anion  in compounds with  etc., and give a few properties, but do not give it a name. I would like to start an article for it, but under what title? Do you happen to know one? "Hypocarbonite"? Thanks... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would recommend Carboxylato, that uses Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry: IUPAC Recommendations 2005. Although, why not create an article on the protonated molecule, with a section on the ion? That way there will be more to write. The protonated article would be Carboxy, which is a redirect at the moment. If you don't want to go with these names, hypocarbonite and hypocarbonous acid seems fine. I also thought about merging carbonite (ion) into dihydroxymethylidene - thoughts? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I will propably go for "carboxylato" for now, to avoid upsetting people who care about carboxy; and also because the anion is real, while the acid (AFAIK) is hypothetical. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 28
Your perspective would be valued in this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Iron(I) hydride
I have added this, but where did the 450.6 kJ/mol come from? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a metric conversion of 107.7 kcal mol−1, given in.
 * A problem with your recent edits to Iron(I) hydride: solid iron(I) hydride is not the same as iron hydride, iron(I) hydride is a gas at STP, not a solid. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For a similiar case: solid mercury hydride is an electrically conductive, metallic grey solid, whereas solid mercury(II) hydride is an insulating, covalent white solid. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Iron(I) hydride does not exist at all at STP. The iron(I) hydride article is about the gas, stable at temperatures above the boiling point of iron.  Below this it breaks up into liquid iron and hydrogen gas.  The solid is not what the article is about, it is just comparing the gas to it. So I suppose that neds to be made clearer. FeH can be trapped in the cryogenic solids, but this does not really count as a solid phase as it is much diluted by the solid hydrogen or noble gas. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of references on Google Scholar about gas phase studies on iron hydrides, which indicate that they are unstable at any temperature higher than cryogenic temperatures. Do you have references for your claims? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I reckon these cryogenic gas phases will not be at standard pressure, as the molecules would react to form solid iron as the more thermodynamically favourable material. Anyway the reference is number 19 by Burgasser, Adam Jet al which talks about condensation to liquid iron. The predominant form of FeH known is in stars. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to reference the Iron(II) hydride article for you? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll post conflicting evidence in the talk pages of the iron hydrides if I find them, that will be easier. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Decomposition does not the determine the phase at STP. A mixture of iron and hydrogen is not the same system as iron(I) hydride. You're comparing apples with oranges. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does this new infobox have (4•) and the previous one (3•) At leaST StdInChIKey matches, chemspider id is 124509. I have added this to article with the "correct" bits omited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Those dots are standard IUPAC radical notation, indicating that the molecules have quintet, and quartet ground states respectively. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So is the quintet state indicated by (5•)? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, according to the definition of multiplicity, a quintet state is indicated by (4•). In a singlet state, there are no unpaired electrons, so it is not indicated in the systematic name, such as the example of methane. The triplet state contains two unpaired electrons, so it is indicated, such as the example of methylidene(2•). The trend is that the number of unpaired electrons is one less than the name of the state (singlet, doublet, triplet, quartet, quintet, etc.).Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes
I can give my opinion on infoboxes supplied on this page, which I assume that you would put in the relevant articles if there was not a ban in place. First the information needs to be correct. In order to do this the question, where di the information come from? should have an answer. Thirdly some of the ref parameters are given suggesting that the chembot has already checked these boxes, which is very unlikely. Fourthly some names appear to be original research, in that you are the first apparently to have published such a name eg "Tetrahydridoiron(2•)" as in the following infobox. So I would suggest as a way forward that you amend the infobox samples you have here on this talkpage to take on these suggestions. I am not too stressed about systematic names that have never before been used, as long as they are 100% correct. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I also need the freedom to edit existing chemboxes. I take great care to ensure that information which I add is correct. SMILES, StdInChI, StdInChIKey, and MolarMass are generated using Marvin Sketch; CAS is primarily found at NIST WebBook. SystematicNames are generated using Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry: IUPAC Recommendatons 2005, and Marvin Sketch. It was formerly concluded by the Project that SystematicNames and IUPACName are inherently unsourceable, not so for OtherNames. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well my point is still not fully addressed. Currently there is a rule about no original research. It has some exceptions about simple calculations, but I do not recall any statements about systematic names or StdInChIKey value. Do you see the issue with the ref causing the red tick? And are you going to fix your proposed box for Uranium(IV) hydride? The Nickel(II) hydride looks reasonable and I have checked all the values.  (But there is no article for it to appear on). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The SystematicName requires original research as remarked by (Jayron?). StdInChIKey is also a simple calculation albeit made by a computer. How do I reference a program, there seems to be no cite template for it? Plasmic Physics (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If the information is non controversial and obvious then no source need to be quoted. If you run a program like Marvin Sketch and input data to get a result and publish it, then you are the source. WP:CALC is the link to the bit about what you can get away with calculating.  I think there is sufficient chance of error, or selecting the wrong input, that SystematicName and StdInChIKey should be referenced to something.  You could use the general citation template to cite a program output. ps UH4 box is still not fixed! This is an example of a systematic name where OR has missed the mark. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, StdInChIKey is not a simple calculation according to WP:CALC. I still can't reference the SystematicName, it is original research by its nature. Shall I attempt to find the relavent discussion on the implicit status of the SystematicName as OR for your convenience? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I agree there is little point. But it could be worthwhile to include discussion at the chemicals project page, and have a consensus included somewhere permanent and easy to find. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to lead an effective discussion, I generally only succeed in contributing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Which part of the UH4 box is flawed, the StdInChI yields unbound atoms with the corresponding SMILES [H].[H].[H].[H].[U] (this is due to the exclusion of the auxiliary data, which would otherwise result in the correct SMILES, from the box), the StdInChIKey is not readable by some molecular modelling programs, perplexingly by MarvinSketch itself. Note that it has similiar unreadability of the StdInChIKey of a single uranium atom (InChIKey=JFALSRSLKYAFGM-UHFFFAOYSA-N). Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought you would have spotted the error by now, it is in the systematic name: UF4 does not contain iron. A copy and paste error. Are there other programs around that can generate StdInChIKey to check? Do we have the algorithm documented somewhere? If the programs cannot read it when they should be able to, it sounds like a bug, but it is not clear what that bug is in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I fixed it now. Some online chemical databases will allow you to convert an InChIKey to a molecule, like PubChem. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not as much the InChI / SMILES that I care about (they are inherently flawed in some cases - SMILES are sometimes confusing, and there are concepts that InChI is not (yet) capable of handling - systems with a complex purely inorganic cation and a complex purely inorganic anion get sometimes strange effects; e.g. there is a difference between Ca(MnO4)2, (CaO)(Mn2O7) and CaMn2O8, a concept which a careless (Std)InChI has problems with). It is however possible to make something reasonable there, and though WP:CALC is not up for such complex calculations, in principle they could be referenced in a way saying 'Generated by MarvinSketch, literature blahblahblah' (in a way like we reference Gaussian calculations, ref to the writers of the algorithms behind Gaussian). But it needs common sense, it is not always thát straightforward.

However, the systematic names etc. are different. Sometimes they are properly defined in literature ('acetic acid' vs. 'ethanoic acid'), some are machine generated in literature, some are machine generated by own software, other would need to be derived by hand. And there is where too much original research comes in. Referencing it to other pages is dangerous (if they have an InChI or SMILES or drawing they may use machine code to generate a name from that, that does not make some utterly reliable site a reliable source for this information), doing it by hand as well (there are limits in InChI, there are certainly limits in SMILES .. and when you generate a name in a case where there are limits ...). Although some are non-ambiguous, having 'tetrahydrido uranium(2•)' does smell of machine generated.

Sometimes fields just need to be left blank, there is no need to fill in everything. It is not just a matter of finding references, or having it filled in - there are fields which at the moment we just can't, reasonably, fill in.

And I think that part of the problem is: where is the limit? And that may also apply to other areas (e.g. the InChI, SMILES, 'mixtures', and eventually categorisations etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that tetrahydridouranium(2•) is not machine generated, I generated it myself using the IUPAC nomenclature algorithms. That is evident from my copy-paste error above (tetrahydridouranium(2•) was tetrahydridoiron(2•) before I fixed it). Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which still makes my point, though I apologize for assuming that it was machine generated. Could you explain to me where the '(2•)' is coming from in that name?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That is answered in the section preceding (Iron(I) hydride). Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Forget the last question, I see that that is mentioned in a previous discussion. And I think that is exactly the point that I make above - that (4•) is just the OR part which would make that part of the name very, very controversial (at what temperature do you report that name ...??).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I report that name variously, at cryogenic temperature in matrix isolation, and at elevated temperature. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Goundstates are independent of temperature. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about that!!?? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, temperature determines the statistical population of the states available, not which states are available. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

CuH
I guess the reason that you removed the discussion of the prep and structure of CuH is that you don't think that CuH exists. Could you point to papers that suggest that the preparative and crystallographic work is incorrect? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, not at all, you have my motive confused. Copper hydride as the well-known red solid is not the same as the molecular gas Copper(I) hydride. The former is a non-stoichiometric mixture of two elements, that can be separated mechanically, and is best defined as an alloy. The latter is a highly unstable chemical compound, and is a proper compound, that decomposes into elemental copper and hydrogen that may or may not result in the formation of the alloy. It is a common mistake to make with hydrides. That is why I split the article to make the distinction clearer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles on many cmpds describe nonstoichiometric species - NiS, FeO, FeS etc. Do we have separate articles on the stoichiometric and nonstoichiometric phases? Maybe we do.  It seems like a topic that the broader community might be interested in discussing.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus
Thanks for adding a comment with a link. I hope you understand I have a lot of opinions myself, and am not opposed to others expressing their opinions, assuming they also offer refs and links. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 19
What I mean is a chemical equation. Would these reactants and products balance out?Curb Chain (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 2 Ag + 2 → 2  + 2  +
 * → Ag +
 * 4 → 2  + 3
 * → Ag +
 * 4 → 2  + 3


 * Does this help. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Helps greatly.  So:
 * dioxidanide ion = = hydroperoxide ion = dioxidanyl radical = hydroperoxyl radical = hydrogen superoxide?


 * No — : dioxidanide/hydroperoxide ion, whereas dioxidanyl/hydroperoxyl radical/hydrogen superoxide: . (An ion is not a radical.)


 * oxonium ion = = oxonium = hydronium = hydronium ion?


 * Yes.


 * ⇌ = equilibrium sign = ↔ = ⇄?


 * Yes.




 * Maybe.


 * Doesn't →  + ?  If not, why?Curb Chain (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Again: maybe. Maybe both reactions ( → +  and  → Ag + ) are competing reactions. This reaction pathway for the silver catalysed decomposition of aqueous hydrogen peroxide is an entirely hypothetical model that could in theory fullfill your proposion, meaning it is a technically viable guess. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very imformative:
 * What is a radical?


 * A radical is a molecule with one or more unpaired electrons, they are usually highly reactive and thus make strong oxidisers or reducers. The word 'radical' is not always added to the molecule name, sometimes it is implicit. An example of a radical is the methyl radical. A radical can become stable by becoming an ion, either by gaining or losing an electron. The superoxide anion-radical may gain an electron to become peroxide . There are other ways for radical to become stable. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. More questions:
 * What is "stability" and how is an ion not stable?


 * 'Stability' is used to describe how the energy of the molecule compares to other configurations with the same chemical formula. Every molecule has a unique energy, the molecule will always attempt to achieve the lowest energy if it is able to. In order to do so, it must become more energetic before it is able to lose energy to achieve a lower energy state. This energy, that it must first gain, is called it's Activation Energy symbolised by Ea. When this energy relatively large, the molecule is stable, if this energy is small, then the molecule is unstable. Stability is a relative term - it is usually said that 'this molecule is, or is not, stable, when compared to that molecule(s)'. A radical is usually less stable than a non-radical, that is why electrons are usually found in pairs, as shown in Lewis diagrams. There is the odd exception, such as dioxygen, where the diradical is more stable than the non-radical form. Both have the same number of electrons, but in one, two of the electrons are not paired. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is confusing me is that radicals and ions can have charges. How are they different?  To me,  and  are both ions because of they both have charge.Curb Chain (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Some radicals are ions, and some ions are radicals, but not all radicals are ions, and not all ions are radicals. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Both have the same number of electrons, but in one, two of the electrons are not paired.
 * Can you explain that?Curb Chain (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * and does not have the same number of electrons,  has one more electron than . Moreover,  has an odd nmber of electrons, so it must be a radical, with at least one unpaired electron. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you explain "diradical" and "dioxygen"?Curb Chain (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A diradical is a molecule with two unpaired electrons (mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-, means one, two, three, and four). Dioxygen is the name of the molecule O2, it literally means 'two-oxygen'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So catalysts never become ions or radicals?Curb Chain (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A requirement of a substance to be called a catalyst is for it to remain after the reaction is complete. During the reaction, it may become a radical, or an ion, but it must return to its former state when the reaction begun. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I always thought so. That's why I thought silver could somehow become ionic/dissociate and react again after to make Ags.Curb Chain (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a curved arrow to indicate catalytic reaction?Curb Chain (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The usual way to indicate a catalytic reaction is to add the chemical formula, or chemical abbreviation for a more complex molecule, in small font directly above the arrow used. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Azane
Thank you for your improvements to the Azane article. Unfortunately, there were also a number of changes that I had to revert. See Talk:Azane for details. &mdash; Sebastian 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ego White Tray (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories
Re: and similar edits: silicon chemistry should refer to processes, not to independent materials. For example, silicon-germanium is not a product of chemical reaction of Si and Ge. Materialscientist (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The new category is designed to accomodate silicon-materials that are not compounds, and processes. Do you propose a name change to clarify? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you need such category? It could be named silicon forms, or alike, but I think introducing it is just a waste of time. BTW, Si-Ge is a non-stoichiometric compound. Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, it is a chemical mixture, not a compound. In either case, it is still a chemical substance. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As I hope I have Materalscientist's attention here too, can we please agree whether Sugru should be categorized in Category:Silicones or not. (Several other recent decategorizations too). This is a bulk material, although it has reasonable claims to be a product too. I would contend that it belong in silicones, as much as Silastic any other branded silicone material does.
 * There's also the question of gel bracelets et al. These are products made of silicones, where being silicones is fundamental to their nature. We might create a sub-category of "Products made of silicones", but I can tell you now that I'm not bothering to split that far down (given the category sizes, it's neither useful nor necessary).
 * There's also the question of direct membership of Silicones in Silicon. Given the perennial confusion about these two topics (categorizing silicone wristbands as "silicone" seems to be contentious today, but they'd already sat under "silicon" for ages without anyone fixing that) we need some linkage between them. Maybe an overt "see also" statement at the top? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We do not categorise products by their material content. If we did, then gunpowder would be categorised under carbon, potassium nitrate, sulfur, and so forth. The articles of concern are trademarks, brands, and products which contain, but are not compounds, as the antecedent category (Silicon compounds) implies. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We categorize by relationships that are significant and useful to readers for navigation paths. These could well include ingredients, where such ingredients have a significant role. Black powder could indeed require links with charcoal and saltpetre. These wristbands are silicone, and can't be made practically of anything other than silicone. Silicone, and its elastomer properties together with its low cost, is an essential feature of making such wristbands. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe not significance, but I fail to see the usefulness of such categorisation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sodium Hydroxide
Hi PP, sorry to be asking about an old edit, do you have a reference for the electrolysis of the hydrate producing sodium metal? Thanks, Ambix (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a bit difficult, since it's based on observations from my own experiments. It is also something that anyone can try, although I don't advise it without proper precaution. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it is more of a proof of concept, rather than a source of sodium. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't match my own experience at higher temperatures and it doesn't match what's in the books I have access to. Sounds like flashes and sparks.  I have someone outside WP quoting it as if it's a volume production method.  If you have any other details I'm interested to know how well it works and I may try it myself just for fun, but since it falls under original research I'm going to remove it from the actual article.  Ambix (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind. I went through some kind of phase when I added that bit. I used a ceramic crucible, and graphite electrodes (stay away from those, they tend to disintgrate from the rapid intercalation, and on the odd occassion, explode). I used 5 V at 2 A, if I remember correctly. You'll need sufficient current to create ohmic heating, but not so much as boil off the sodium. Start with small volumes first. I am planning to try the experiment again under molten paraffin wax to create an anoxic environment. It should work, as sodium hydroxide is not soluble or reactive towards parrafin wax, and it is denser, so it should sink below. What ever you do, take precausion against the corrosive fumes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If the mixture is cool enough that could work. Might smoke and catch fire higher.  I tried electrolysis the hot way some years ago, had some success with 13v/10a PSU and the shallow pan from a steel drinks can.  Used a copper wire cathode, best results were when the mixture was just freezing.  A lot of hydrogen frothing and when it caught the bang would shoot burning sodium across the shed.  When I tried to scale it up I got nothing but hydrogen. Ambix (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Start with the monohydrate, which is the commercially available form, laboratory NaOH is anhydrous. Add a few drops of water, just enough to moisten the monohydrate, you don't want it swimming, or any standing water for that matter. You probably had too much moisture for those results. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you delete my post?
Hello, I posted on the ref desk earlier, and it looks like you deleted it. Was this some sort of mistake, or am I reading the diff incorrectly? I'm assuming you didn't intentionally erase my response. SemanticMantis (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * When I went to save my edit, it returned an 'edit conflict'. However, it did not highlight the difference between versions other than my missing post. I had no way of knowing that I had involuntarily deleted your post. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Cypenamine correction TALK
Dito to you (what I said to DS) Plasma Physics. "It is better to keep your 'mouth' shut and let others think that you might be stupid then to open it and remove all doubt".--122.111.241.118 (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

To Plasma Physics I am Truly Very Sorry I have possibly hurt your feelings and "put you down" It appears you are a conscientious, possibly relatively young, person who appears to have studied some chemistry but not much, in relative terms, And was trying to stick up for your fellow editor against the crazed rantings of some perceived pedantic nutcase maniac, but it appears you have walked into a gun fight holding a knife so to speak. I am 39, I have "traditionally" studied chemistry particularly excelling (if I do say so my self) in organic chemistry and to a lesser extent "Analytical Chemistry" to the Bsc(applied Chemistry) graduate level some 10 or so years ago. Personal issues have prevented me furthering my academic/professional career but it remains a strong interest. I also have 3 children all boys ages 22,18 and 16. Chemistry even narrowed down to an area such as organic chemistry is such a huge complex field that even PhD whatevers do not by any means know the ins and outs of all facets of even their own field. But my point is actually very basic unless you have not studied structural organic chemistry much. Sorry I am rambling But I think the point I was trying to make was that - Have you herd the saying "The more I learn the less I know". (You can tell I like my old sayings) This is so very true in the reverse sense with a lot of academic types etc (I am not trying to put you down!!) it is somewhat of a fact, and is in the same vain as "Ask a teenager while they still know everything" a fact of life so to speak. I here by extend the hand of friendship to you an my apologies.(btw I am sick and feel that I am not expressing my self very well but I hope you get the gist)--OneMadScientist (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a post in response to your post 5 min earlier to Project Osprey (fortunately for [I had not seen it before writing the above post to] you) in the racemates angry anon section.

My incivility as you say (stems from extreme frustration Because I AM 100% CORRECT AND YOU WOULD BE WISE TO HEED MY IMPORTANT WORDS OF WISDOM such as "It is better to keep your 'mouth' shut and let others think that you might be stupid then to open it and remove all doubt") and not ridicule and reject that which you do not understand.

You, my son, would do best at avoiding "Destruction??" as you put it buy listening very very carefully (and with a great deal of respect) to the words that come out of my fingers before dismissing and criticizing them.

(Personal attack removed) I would appreciated a response hopefully positive, but please be careful you obviously are/have been misunderstanding, misrepresenting and underestimating me to an astonishing level.--OneMadScientist (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also plasma physics -I would also like to, unreservedly, sincerely apologize for any rude, disrespectful and arrogant comments I have made toward or about you, and can only say that I was lashing out, out of extreme frustration, at my perceived attackers, SORRY PLEASE FORGIVE ME.--OneMadScientist (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as you're sincere, sure. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes mate, of course I am, Thanks and I am glad to hear it.--OneMadScientist (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that you can be 100% certain of my sincerity.--OneMadScientist (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dimethylglycine
On what basis you list Dimethylglycine as harmful if swallowed? (The GHS box.) Especially because it is sold as a food supplement. Ariel. (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is sourced from it's MSDS sheet. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The edible one is Dimethylglycine HCL. With an LD50 of 3900 mg/kg vs 650 for Dimethylglycine. Since we don't have an article on Dimethylglycine HCL, I think you should use the info for that instead. Or somehow let people know there is a big difference. Ariel. (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a good idea to cross topics. If this article is about the non-hydrochloride, then the chembox should be about the non-hydrochloride. That doesn't mean that the hydrochloride should not be mentioned in its own section within this article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But the article is actually about the hydrochloride. I'm going to be bold and move the name - will you update the chembox to be about the hydrochloride? (I don't think we need an article about the non-hydrochloride since it'll be hard to find any info about it - everyone who talks about it means the food supplement version.) Ariel. (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Under ordinairy conditions, I'd be happy to oblige. However, I'm currently barred from making any alterations to chemboxes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ???? What happened? Why are you barred? Is this a short temporary block? Or long term? If long term do you want to tell me what to change? Ariel. (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Goodfaith edits gone wrong - the lack of concrete sourcing rules/guidelines for nomenclature, combined with my enthusiasm for upgrading and maintaining chemboxes, got too much for the WP:CHEMS project. They decided that it is far easier to block me indefinitely, than to address the root of the problem. I'll create a new chembox for you and post it here. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here you go. Note that the hydrochloride is much less well known, that is why the chembox is a bit emptier. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey (this is all just off the cuff but) I dont believe this is correct - Quote " The edible one is Dimethylglycine HCL. With an LD50 of 3900 mg/kg vs 650 for Dimethylglycine" Are you sure these figures were for the same animal by the same route?. This would amaze me truly. I would just like to say that obviously if swallowed free form DMG will be essentially converted to the HCL in the stomach and notwithstanding initial H2O solubility differences causing a spike in absorption rate and any initial irritation (ph etc induced) of the skin, mucous membranes of the mouth and esophagus etc or absorption directly into the blood stream by these tissues, which I highly doubt is an issue in this case, they are in such a circumstance essentially the same thing in my book and the LD50s for ingestion by that route at least will essentially be identical (adjusted for HCL wt of course). I would Think BUT I am no toxicological pharmacologist? --OneMadScientist (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm no pharmacologist either, I just follow the reference material. The Sigma Aldrich MSDSs for the hydrochloride and the plain both give the respective figures for a rat (orally), under section 11.1. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * WELL WELL WELL (thank you for your coherent useful reply) it seams that something is very wrong here.


 * "Dont always believe what you read in the paper" so to say ;-)


 * Quote from the HCl link


 * Information on toxicological effects
 * Acute toxicity
 * LD50 Oral - rat - 3.900 mg/kg  (3.9 mg/kg?????????? not 3.9 g) so it seams this is a deadly poison to rats watch out!!! HANDLE WITH 2EXTREME CAUTION!!!


 * and also Quote from the free amino acid link


 * Information on toxicological effects
 * Acute toxicity
 * LD50 Oral - rat - > 650 mg/kg


 * WOW like I said I did not believe it, and now I am sure I am Right! This discrepancy could not be possible!


 * They (Sigma Aldrich!!) seem to not have access to competent toxicological pharmacologists for sure.


 * Also notice the > (greater than) sign in front of the 650mg/kg What does that "Mean" 651mg?, 1kg????


 * I'am so glad were are actually cooperating in a constructive way (what a relief).


 * Best Regards to you my friend.--OneMadScientist (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I must have missed the decimal point, Sigma Adrich MSDS lists LD50s in mg kg−1, even when it is in the thousands range. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Some parts of Europe have inverted comma/period usage in numbers compared to US, so "3.900" could really mean "three thousand nine hundred". That's consistent with the trailing zeros (MSDS generally wouldn't bother using 4 sig-figs, or microgram precision for mg values?). Some pharmacies would refuse to fill a scrip with that hand-written value because it's so easy to misinterpret, leading to a possible factor-of-a-thousand dosing error. DMacks (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was always try to cooperate constructively where appropriate. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I very much Hope you are beginning to see me, and the wisdom and usefulness of my council, in a 'different light' than you had been Plasma Physics.--OneMadScientist (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If going by definitions, I would describe it as 'opinions' rather than 'wisdom' or 'council'. I would never say "Look and see, how great is my wisdom", or any equivalents thereof, at the risk of sounding pretentious or conceited, but that's just me. I leave it to others to judge for themselves how poor or how great it is. I don't shun opinions, except when they are of a malicious nature. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * Quote


 * "Osprey, I advise you for your peace of mind, not to contend with him any longer. You are civil and wise, but he is intent on disregarding your and my council to his own destruction. As a consequence, neither of our proposals will be regarded either. I'm only saying this out of respect for you, but do as you think is right. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)-"


 * If you made that interpretation of my statement why is your statment not to be interpreted in EXACTLY the same way.


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * I have WISELY warned you about your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of my words.


 * When I said "wisdom" in relation to my-self I was (obviously) referring to your remark toward my lack of wisdom when You called Project Osprey Wise in relation to me and me not heeding you and his "council" to "my destruction" YOUR WORDS SUNSHINE!. Why does he deserve such a title from you then. And why do you believe that your(and his) council was "SO GREAT"???. YOU INTRODUCED THESE WORDS in relation to "HOW GREAT YOU BOTH WERE" in relation to me.


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * THIS BAFFLES ME and I WAS SO HOPPING MORE FROM AND TO BEFRIEND YOU


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * I shall now "Turn the other Cheek" to you and pray to The lord to allow you to see the error of your ways and make the appropriate apologies.


 * However "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink"!???????????????????????.


 * Now back to the subject.


 * ARE you are contending that 3.9mg/kg for the HCL and >650mg/kg for the free form must obviously be correct because they are in the sigma aldrich MSDS, It is ridiculous.


 * Please chose your response carefully I'am highly offended at the attitude you have taken toward me and I have tried so very hard to befriend and appoligise to you for my initial rude remarks.


 * I ANXIOUSLY AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE--OneMadScientist (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * QUOTE that I refered to "Osprey, I advise you for your peace of mind, not to contend with him any longer. You are civil and wise, but he is intent on disregarding your and my council to his own destruction. As a consequence, neither of our proposals will be regarded either. I'm only saying this out of respect for you, but do as you think is right. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneMadScientist (talk • contribs)


 * I'm certainly not contending that it is obviously correct, only that it is the most accurate value found. Wikipedia is always in a state of improve - if there is a value that can be proven to be more accurate, then it should rightly take its place and improve the article. As far as we know, either value may be wrong, but a suspision is not enough to justify removal as opposed to replacement. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If we look at what I said to Osprey, I did not say that you lacked wisdom, only that you did not care for what we offered. I called him wise, because I saw the value of his words. Can I be blamed for what I see, or in whom I do not see it? I refrained from judging you, and only declared what I saw. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * Quote


 * YOU SAY THIS ABOUT ME


 * "Osprey, I advise you for your peace of mind, not to contend with him any longer. You are civil and wise, but he is intent on disregarding your and my council to his own destruction. As a consequence, neither of our proposals will be regarded either. I'm only saying this out of respect for you, but do as you think is right. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)-"


 * THEN AFTER FURTHER DISCOURSE (INCLUDING APPOLOGIES (even though you and he were wrong scientifically) AND POSITIVE COMMENTS etc) I SAY TO YOU


 * I very much Hope you are beginning to see me, and the wisdom and usefulness of my council, in a 'different light' than you had been Plasma Physics.--OneMadScientist (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * THEN YOU SAY TO ME


 * If going by definitions, I would describe it as 'opinions' rather than 'wisdom' or 'council'. I would never say "Look and see, how great is my wisdom", or any equivalents thereof, at the risk of sounding pretentious or conceited, but that's just me. I leave it to others to judge for themselves how poor or how great it is. I don't shun opinions, except when they are of a malicious nature. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you made that interpretation of my statement why is your statment not to be interpreted in EXACTLY the same way. '''


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * -HURRY MY BLOOD IS BOILING'''


 * Please I beg YOU hurry If You are unable to see That I am TOTALLY JUSTIFIED AND CORRECT and you have been very rude to say the least.


 * PLEASE JUST SAY (I DISAGREE) AND I WILL NEVER BOTHER YOU WITH MY Opinion's OR COMMENTS AGAIN.--OneMadScientist (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What crime did I commit against you, except witholding what you believe to be your due? I have explained the intended meaning of my words, and I find no fault in my intent. I do not repent from what I've said. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * (Personal attack removed) You obviously do not deserve the friendship and assistance I have offered to you. (Personal attack removed)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * (Personal attack removed) and you sicken me.


 * I withdraw all apologies, and complements I have ever made to you. (Personal attack removed)


 * (Personal attack removed)


 * Sincerely--OneMadScientist (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed)