User talk:Plasmic Physics/Archive 7

Addition of to compounds containing aromatic portions
I have reverted several of your edits where you have done this but there are many others. Please revert the remaining edits that are incorrect.--122.109.114.21 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Deciding which ones are incorrect is your responsibility. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, deciding which ones were correct was your responsibility, Plasmic Physics. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And this one goes back to the same old problem that got you banned from chemboxes. Organic-compound-stub is here way better than having all of 'alcohol-stub, ketone-stub, aromatic-compound-stub, ester-stub, amide-stub, spirocompound-stub, alkene-stub, cycloalkene-stub, chiral-compound-stub (of which you only select cycloalkene.
 * Plasmic Physics, there is no consensus for this type of edits, whether it is naming, whether it is unifying data in chemboxes, whether it is categorisation, whether it is this type of stub-sorting. You got banned from the chemboxes for continuing with things for which there was no consensus (but for which there was opposition).  And this is actually yet another subset of that same type of edits.  Please be careful.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I am bringing this again to the talkpage of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry - more than 100 damaging edits is too much to undo, and I don't think this should continue. See you there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cycloalkene stubs
Category:Cycloalkene stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to chemistry pages
There is a long discussion about your edits to chemistry articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. I am disappointed to see that you have not engaged there and responded to the criticisms. Please do so, and we might then come to some kind of resolution. Ignoring criticism never helps. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on that page. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genesis (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) 08:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Related compounds in chembox
Hi! While reviewing a Hungarian translation of 2-Ethyl-1-butanol I was wondering what criteria were applied in selecting the related compounds for chembox. As this seem to have been mostly added by you, maybe you can clarify this to me, as at first sight I am missing the bases. Thanks! Szaszicska (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. They are related in being structural analogues of simple branched alkanes. Please don't feel constrained to the same list. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Titanium hydride
I seem to recollect that YOU rewrote this article to become a generic article about all of the different phases of titanium hydride. Once again I urge to learn something about hydrides - read Fukais excellent book. I hope that you will do the right thing! Axiosaurus (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Even so, two wrongs don't make a right. I also recommend you do more research on the topic to ensure your understanding is sound. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Titanium hydride, TiH2, is a well known commercially available non-stoichiometric (another concept I urge you to read up on) compound, and is what is generally called titanium hydride. That was the focus of the original article before you changed it. I still hope that on reflection and perhaps a little introspection you do the right thing and try to improve the article rather than simply over-reacting. Axiosaurus (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted all your changes. They were a massive change to the whole thrust of the article and therefore should have been discussed on the talk page. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  12:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article was reverted to a stable version prior to Axiosaurus's rewrite. Where is his discussion for his massive changes? His edits were considered to be the bold stage according to WP:BRD, hence a revert stage was appropriate. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur
…with your longstanding methylene bridge merger proposal. Message at proposal location, cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction re. cast iron
I want to tell you personally (just in case you missed looking at the ref desk) that I was WRONG re. the point where a binary iron-carbon system goes from iron-cementite to iron-graphite -- I said the transition point is at about 2% carbon, but in fact it NEVER transitions to iron-graphite unless silicon is added as an alloying element. My apologies, 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've responded there. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Re your difficulties with the Cp, HOAc, and other edits
I read through the long discussion at the time, and posted a thorough review of the matter, but just discovered it sandboxed, and though late, I have posted it anyway. See.

At times I take you to task for your approach (seeming to want to do an "end around" consensus, and so initiating edits that you knew, once discovered, would lead to conflict). On the other hand, I at times substantiate your points—mainly, that both the cyclopentadienyl anion and radical deserve coverage, and so disambiguation. On the other hand, all the arguments regarding carboxylate reactivity are, out of any specific context, so much "angels on the head of a pin" nonsense. Please, see the link I provide to the Liverpool OChem/mechanism pages, which are connected to the outstanding Clayden organic chemistry text (which I repeat throughout my comments).

Bottom line, the control and orderliness you seek from editing chem articles will not be possible, here, I think, but I am as sympathetic as I can be. To give all peace, I therefore close the discussion with a proposal, and you will see I took great pains to make it even handed. I wish you would consider agreeing to it—quickly, before others have a chance to pick it apart, and/or up the stakes.

You might say, why not let sleeping dogs lie… but we both know that there are significant enough philosophical differences in play, that either some substantive understanding and approach will be agreed to, or the whole matter will again detonate at a later date. And if it recurs, we both must see—even if at times I side with you on the science—you will be in the minority, and you will end up with the short stick (sooner rather than later I fear).

Please, go back to that mammoth discussion page, and read my interspersed comments, and then, consider a simple closing statement: "I can agree to this proposal; can the rest of you guys?"

Even if they do not (especially if they do not), it will go a long way to showing your good faith, and protecting you in the case of future related conflict. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, if responded there. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship
Hi. Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. I am going to try to help you get on a better footing in your chemistry edits. Here is a copy of what I have agreed to do.

"User:Plasmic Physics will seek consensus using high quality sources before making any changes to chemistry-related articles which might be seen as controversial. If in doubt, assume it is controversial. I will enforce this with warnings and blocks if necessary. I will also mentor PP and suggest ways that he can edit more productively. I will also enforce the highest level of politeness and collegiality in other editors dealing with PP. This too I will enforce with warnings and blocks if necessary. My aim going into this would be to enable harmonious and productive editing from all involved and to keep admin action to an absolute minimum."

Please try to treat this as an opportunity rather than a threat. I can really help you if you work with me. Just ping me if there is anything, however small, that concerns you. --John (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Noted, however, I need a partial Wikibreak before I attempt an edit for which I need to consult the agreement. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine, do this at your own speed. Whenever you want any help, just give a shout and I will be here, whether it is in an hour or a year. --John (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You act and speak far too quickly mate
You simply haven't the depth of professional or career experience to trust your intuitions on chemical subjects. The carboxylic acid discussion earlier was a very long and painful example (of which you are not even yet fully aware); the comment regarding bulk chemicals, to which I replied, is the most recent of which I am aware. Do thorough research on every bloody big editing impulse you have and ask me for opinions. You are far too eager to act, with a foundation far too weak. As a career professional that knows my limits, I would not have suggested the bulk chemical issue; and yet my instinct toward caution and conservatism were correct, as shown by 2 minutes of searching (see second, storage regulatory comment and link). Cheers, best wishes, but own this responsibility, mate. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you just criticising me for the sake of criticism, or do have a point to make? Would you care to summarise the issue you have with my understanding of the carboxyl group? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Your response is too knee-jerk and pat; think for a moment, "Do I know this fellow?". I played such a prominent role in the proposal and discussion at the Wikipedia Chemistry page with you earlier in the month, I thought I would be memorable as a persona, and need no introduction. And the issue of the day was stated: see comments regards the renaming of the Bulk Chemicals category, at the Wikiproject Chemistry talk page . Take or leave my advice, there (and repeated, here, above, more emphatically); nothing really to discuss.


 * On the carboxylate matter, to refresh your memory, see and look for my name and comments, interspersed. In particular, I presented a weblink to a 6-membered transition state, from the excellent Clayden text (see, and then go for the whole book, ). After reading Clayden et al. on carboxylates and carbonyl addition mechanisms, if you find something wrong there, tell me page and paragraph (if you wish). We can then talk. (I can't take the time to sort the earlier conversation on it, sorry; but the general memory of the types of mistakes being made is clear.) If you find that Clayden is at odds with the presentation of the subject at Wikipedia, feel free to tell me that, page and paragraph, as well. Oh, here is the chat that got us started here, at your talk page, above, also for refreshers . And stick with John by the way, great Admin. As fair and patient as they get.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I know you, which is why I'm surprised by this unexpected, and seemingly unwarranted, attitudinal critique. It is unclear from your commentary on the Chemistry page, which of my understandings you actually disagree with. Are you saying that the hydrogen atom is bonded to both oxygen atoms concurrently; or that the oxygen atoms are degenerate at any one instant; or that the COH-oxygen atom is the first to be attacked in most known reactions? Because if you do, it would be clear. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Apology for delay; if students are pressed for time, you may imagine what it is like on the other end of the podium.


 * Friends are allowed to be frank with one another, in my circle. My last statement to you was frank. As I indicated, it was written after reading an initiative you took (questions asked, changes suggested) at Bulk chemical category page, []. What you, and then I, wrote there was written after all of the hubbub and the agreement at the Wikiprojects Chemistry page, in the first week of June. Bravo for bringing the bulk chemical question to discussion. Now, I am trying to take you the next step—things to do before even discussing. Forget carboxylates, or Bulk chemicals, or Nomenclature, any other specific example, for now: Appreciate the following.


 * In editing, you have a tendency to "shoot first, ask questions later". You read and respond to article content/editing instinctively, and begin to write without conducting any background research. As a result, the thrust of your comments (which have admirably replaced immediate editing) can come across as being significantly naive. For instance, in the Bulk chemical category article, you noted the vagueness of a term, and questioned whether this was a suitable continuing designation for this category of chemicals. As I note there, in Talk, the thrust of those comments belies inexperience. There is no practicing chemist above a certain level of experience who does no know what this means, and understands its niche in the practical chemical world. You can rename it to be closer to usage in the UK or EU, but this will not change the fact that it is useful, and has meaning. It is a good category, as anyone with a few years of real world chemical experience in the U.S. or in communication with the U.S. marketplace would know. That you do not have years of experience in the U.S. or other chemical industry or academic enterprise is forgivable; that you might make mistakes in editing because of this experience is also forgivable. What is at issue is your confidence in your initial, instinctive editorial thrusts—in particular, because you have already been told repeatedly "do not trust them, rather seek advice". So I am trying to have you extend this—to experience the impulse, make a note of it, do some thorough background digging, and if the idea survives your own attempt to shoot it down (Karl Popper's idea in "Conjecture and Refutation"), then you might just have something to argue about.


 * Despite inexperience, you still feel instinctive responses to your reading articles (all of us do, this is acceptable); but to proceed to make the perhaps unconscious decision to bypass research, and to immediately, confidently speak (or in earlier cases, edit—not all of us do this, and this is less acceptable). Bottom line, given your youth and inexperience in chemical areas, and your clear record of less than stellar instincts in editing, I advise in every case, you both dig a little first, then, if the opinion or idea survives your own closer scrutiny, then bring jot to other's attention. This, prior to either stating things emphatically, or doing actual edits. You have a great deal to learn, and this is true of all of us (myself included). What is not clear, is whether you are aware of the vastness of the ignorance of even newly minted PhD's, and so are, like them, ready to have it remediated.


 * Again, this comes from a friend, and I hope you can hear it. I understand, this is perhaps an abstract point, and that you will wish to go to a specific case (and conduct the usual microsurgical dissection in defense of your actions). This is part of the problem, and so I consciously, volitionally, am trying to lead you away from a specific (Bulk chemicals, Carboxylic acid reactions, various Chemical nomenclature disputes) to the general underlying problem: Thesis the first, You need to approach editing in areas where you are insufficiently knowledgable, with humility; Thesis the second, in essentially all matters chemical, you are as yet insufficiently knowledgable to have very firm opinions. That you do not understand something, that you have never experienced it… these are reasons to say "How might I understand this?", not to say "This is strange to me, and so likely in error."  Cheers, best wishes.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This may all be true, however, I can't say that I agree that it is pivotal, with regard to content discussions on talk pages. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618937066 your edit] to Potassium octachlorodimolybdate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Potassium octachlorodimolybdate systematically named potassium bis(tetrachloridomolybdate)(Mo—Mo)(4−) is an [[

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Mercury_hydride
Your AfD of Mercury hydride was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry. I have responded to that, with the strong suggestion, again, that you leave naming and nomenclature issues alone for a long time (at least a year or two), and the request that you withdraw the AfD. Please comment there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I came here to endorse this suggestion. Articles for deletion/Mercury hydride is an example of the sort of thing you got into trouble for before. Would it be possible to withdraw it and do something else for a while? --John (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is something else, it is maintenance work. Getting rid of a useless disambiguation, that impedes the reader from finding the correct article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that you do not see that this is again the same issue: naming and nomenclature. This issue is again on the same basis, naming and nomenclature.  Per my suggestion that you stay away from naming and nomenclature issues for a long time, I don't think that you should be the one instigating such suggestions, or be part of their implementation, let alone that you boldly execute them.  Moreover, I do feel that this AfD is a somewhat WP:POINTy action after your bold change of the article to a redirect was reverted by User:Whoop whoop pull up.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the WP:ATD-R encourages bold action; WP:POINTy necessitates that I disagree with my own edits, which I do not; and WP:BLAR instructs that I initiate a discussion at AfD. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I refer to WP:POINT (though in a minimalist way) as you appear to make a point by AfD'ing an article where your changeover did not stick. I gets close to '..  it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently'.  WP:BOLD does not encourage to continue to be bold when all similar actions are met with resistance, reverting or disputes.  Continuing to be bold then simply ignores the fact that the whole line of editing is maybe not supported by (part of) the community.  I therefore again suggest that you completely stay away from naming and nomenclature for a significant time, as your suggestions and your bold actions do not find consensus, and regularly lead to disputes and are often reverted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to make a point, I'm simply following the suggested procedure. 'Similar actions', when last did I attempt to boldly convert a disambiguation page into a redirect? This doesn't really have a notable precedence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought the procedure was that you were to seek consensus before making any changes (and we both agreed to that). Not boldly making changes when you know that consensus has not been reached.
 * You want to change the disambig page because you think that the pages are at 'the wrong name' - that is in line with your constant actions regarding to naming and nomenclature. It is similar, not the same, it is again a naming/nomenclature issue, and that is why I suggest that you stay away from that for a long time.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The guidelines advised to be bold first then to seek consensus upon the instance of reversion. Not at all, changing the disambiguation page does not have anything to do with the HgH and being at the wrong names, that matter was already settled; it has to do with the disambiguation page being self-defeating. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The guidelines advise, indeed, but you agreed differently - you agreed to User:John's proposal to seek consensus before applying changes which might be controversial (and when in doubt, assume that they were controversial; note, here is no doubt because you knew that at least one person opposed to this change, that shows you that it is controversial, and especially since you yourself indicated that there was an earlier content dispute with these articles). That consensus was obviously not reached.
 * Your change of Mercury hydride from a disambiguation to a redirect is because you believe that the name 'Mercury hydride' is common for Mercury(II) hydride, and/or that Mercury(II) hydride is more common than Mercury(I) hydride. It hence has all to do with the naming of the chemicals, an issue I ask you to stay away from completely. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal warning
Hi Plasmic Physics. You agreed here to seek consensus using high quality sources before making any changes to chemistry-related articles which might be seen as controversial, and I agreed to help enforce this and mentor you if you needed it. I find that this change, from a disambiguation page to a redirect, falls outside what you agreed to. I will not block this time, but I am here to warn you that if you do anything like this again, it will likely become necessary to block you to prevent disruption to the project. Don't forget, before doing anything like this, you have the options of asking the Chemistry project, asking me as I have offered, or raising it at the article's talk page. Please don't forget this, as I really don't want to block anyone, particularly not a well-intentioned contributor like yourself. --John (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agreed to use high quality sources, on the condition that they are available. They are not. I agreed to seek consensus before making any changes to chemistry-related articles which might be seen as controversial. This was not seen as controversial, or even possibly so. I merely acted in accordance with policy. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you look for sources? I find it hard to believe that there are no sources whatsoever on the mercury hydrides. I am telling you that this is the sort of thing that others find controversial. Do not do it again, please. --John (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, there are no secondary sources at all. If there are, they are very well hidden. The physical existence of HgH is so tenuous, that it is only of interest to those who are doing topical research. Knowledge of the existence of HgH2 is also too novel for it to be acknowledged by secondary sources. Don't think that I'm making intentionally controversial edits. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Iron–hydrogen alloy
I have listed our dispute at Third opinion. Biscuittin (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Silicon mixtures
Category:Silicon mixtures, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Final warning
Hi again Plasmic Physics. I see that you have made edits that contravene our agreement as archived here. Specifically you said you would seek consensus using high quality sources before making any changes to chemistry-related articles which might be seen as controversial and it does not look as if this conforms with your agreement. As I said on 11 August, I really do not want to use the block tool on well-intentioned editors like yourself, but edits like this place me in a difficult position. Could you please wait for a consensus to form in talk (perhaps the WP3O request will bear fruit) rather than making any more bold edits like this? --John (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you through a final warning around like it's candy, be cautious and make sure you have your duck in a row. Regarding the changes you refer to, I did not implement any new material, I simply restored the status quo as part of managing an overzealous, mistaken user. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * John is actually being generous by giving you a second final warning instead of blocking you immediately. Biscuittin (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Biscuittin here. If you are in any doubt about whether an edit you are thinking of making breaches the restriction, do not make it. Instead ask me (or any admin) about it. --John (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To me, it is very clear that my edit is not in breach. You'll have to convince me of which section is has been breached. Generous or not, it is of no point, unless a warning is warranted in the first place. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Editing without giving references, e.g. at Iron hydride on 30 November 2014. Biscuittin (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The question is not which edit (John already specified which edit), but how the particular edit is in breach. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * John and I are talking about different edits. Do you accept that your edits to Iron hydride on 30 November 2014 were unreferenced? Biscuittin (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. I'm already in the process of recovering references. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Binary compounds of hydrogen
I see you made some alterations to Binary compounds of hydrogen on 4/5 December 2014. Please provide references for these. Biscuittin (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference for iron change: . Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Iron(II) hydride
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Iron(II) hydride, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Firebag237 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005
I noticed your revert of my edit on IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005. You are wrong about the spelling as you can easily verify by consulting many sources such as this one. Monoatomic is incorrect. After you have checked perhaps you would like to revert your revert and in future get your facts right before you resort to your reverting weapon. Jodosma (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you prove that "monoatomic" is incorrectly spelled? No, you can't, because it's not. It's an alternate spelling, and it is also lexographically adequate as the constituents are more evident and inferable. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * // - Plasmic Physics is correct here (though the revert could have been explained in an additional edit summary) - IUPAC used the term 'monoatomic' in their 2005 recommendations. And it is indeed likely an alternative spelling.  It may be 'incorrect' based on dictionaries, I would use those dictionaries with care in case of specialist terms and/or parts that are mentioned in external documents ('quotes').  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * God help us if the day ever comes when scientists and the like decide how we should spell things. The Concise Oxford gives monatomic and I can see no reason for anyone to reinvent the wheel no matter who they are. Jodosma (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * God help us if the day ever comes when linguistic purists and the like decide how to quote original texts .. go complain to IUPAC if you want to revise their texts. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * .. by the way, did you mean monatomic ('also monoatomic') or monatomic .. So it is an alternate spelling that is defined in some dictionaries. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IUPAC is wrong and so are you. The Shorter Oxford has monatomic, citing 1848 as a first appearance in English. Jodosma (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Still funny that Oxford does also consider monoatomic as a possible spelling, Jodosma. At least we do not have consensus here, so maybe a wider discussion is in place before you blanket replace all these instances.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do what you like. Jodosma (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Know who authored statement
Plasmic Physics:

My first shot at asking a question. It appears you have made "edits?" I believe is the term to an article "Methyl Radical" The history would seem that the discussion has been much reduced, but with you apparently making a number of edits over time. With respect to a statement in the article, umder the section called "Production", "It Methyl Radical(s?) is/are produced by the ultraviolet dissociation of acetone". would you know who wrote/made the statement? I would like to find more information to the statement including the physical conditions for the statement, such as temperature, pressure other pertinent or important conditions such as time to generate, hydrophilic/hydrophobic, polar/non-polar system?, gas phase/liuid phase, catalysts? specially including a range of frequencies of the untraviolet light. If do not know who made the statement, would you have any suggestions how to generate additional data?

Thank you for your time and comments

Chem4EngrChem4Engr (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that I wrote the statement after a quick Google search. I just amended it, and included a reference. Since it rapidly dimerises below 1100 C, it's not going to be generated in measureable quantities in anything but a vapour phase. It's possible to produce at room temperature, especially at very low partial pressures. Photodissociation is a rather instantaneous event, so the methyl radicals would be generated instantly, the question would then be how long they last, and that depends on the experimental parameters. Other references, say that rutile or titanium oxide is a useful catalyst. Google scholar is a gold mine for generating data, I just don't have the time right now. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Gallane
Plasmic Physics:

I'm very new at this, but shouldn't you be citing your references for your statements? I requested a reference for the first "Production" section and you did add one and I thank you for that, but not trying to be "gotcha person", shouldn't you be citing all the references for statements? In the same article, you (if it is you) have cited three more production methods, "Halomethane photolysis", "Methane Oxidation" and "Azomethane pyrolosis) and they also do not have reference citrations. In your reply, you said you were busy, but could you add the references as soon as you time? Chem4EngrChem4Engr (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Daniel 2
Hi. I reverted your edits on Daniel 2, then un-reverted most of it, but the last edit is a bit too complicated for me and I don't know how to add it back. Sorry to give you more work, but if you want to put it back I certainly have no objection. PiCo (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. I've made a small edit to your section of Daniel 2, just changing the section title and giving a definition that I thought was needed. Please have a look and see if you agree. Also, can that section be made more concise? Are SDA, JW and Mormons really so different? This is not an area I'm familiar with so I leave it to you. PiCo (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really see it as 'my' section, I am only enthusiastic about editing it, and even then just the SDA subsection. FWIW, I do agree. I'm not sure about conciseness, but I do think that it could be rewritten to better explain why those three denominations are represented in the section rather than just falling of the back of the wagon, so to speak. The three represented are very much the same from the legs upward, but each one has a distinct interpretation of the feet and rock. Due to the interconnection between core Biblical prophecies, these particular interpretations affect important consequences on those prophecies. In my opinion, it is important to highlight the consequences - how the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's Dream impacts upon the interpretation particular to the denomination, of other prophecies, if there is an impact. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I call it "your" section because I don't feel competent to edit it myself and because you're taking that interest. I do want to see a good article here, and I think it's in reach. PiCo (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Chromium hydride
Hi, Happy New Year!

You seem to be trying to change the Chromium hydride to be about a titanium-chromium hydride. Chromium hydride does not require high pressures to form, and electrolysis actually makes it. It is only slightly unstable, taking many weeks at standard conditions to decompose. So now the lede does not match the content. It is fair enough to have the titanium allow, but it should not be the major factor in the lede, and should just get a paragraph lower down in a related section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Same to you!


 * Are you talking about the Material properties section lede? That was an old copy-error, unrelated to the most recent changes. The pressure statement only makes a statement on stability, regarding pressure. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am actually talking about the lede, which now gives too much emphasis to stuff that is not chromium hydride. eg TiCr2H3 (or 4) is a related substance and not the main topic of the page. Also Chromium with less than one part per thousand hydrogen dissolved is not the main topic either. I think it is fair enough to cover these in the article, but not at the start, as they distract the reader too early. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then I'm thoroughly perplexed, because the lede contains no mention of or allusion to titanium. Do perhaps have a previous version of the article in front of you? I'm going over the article, considering whether or not to move some of the content to the other chromium hydride articles. This article contains mainly primary sources, so I have to investigate the statements here, to see whether they correctly relay the technical information from those sources. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Invalid/Non-portable acyclic aromatic SMILES
Do you mind if I correct the SMILES for Sulfur monoxide from 'o:s' back to 'O=S'? Generally SMILES line notation reserves lower case characters and colons to indicate aromaticity in cyclic conjugated systems, and indeed many cheminformatics toolkits reject or misinterpret 'o:s'. In SMILES generated by Dave Weininger's/Daylight's original toolkit, aromatic atoms only appear in ring systems. The reason I ask is that it was your edit of 25 July 2011 that changed the SMILES to the current representation, and I didn't want to revert anything unless I'm sure that change was unintentional. Where did you come across (or how did you generate) 'o:s', by the way? May I please have your permission to edit similar SMILES issues as I come across them? Many thanks in advance. (BiomolecularGraphics4All (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead? You don't need my permission, but I thank you for letting me know. 122.59.174.126 (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Halomonoarsanes


A tag has been placed on Category:Halomonoarsanes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — swpb T 16:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Monoarsanes


A tag has been placed on Category:Monoarsanes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — swpb T 16:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Only warning
If you ever ask again that we give you responses to reduce the possibility of harm to yourself or others because of your desire to conduct experiments without competent advice, guidance and support, I will ask for you to be blocked. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=798854795&oldid=798851096] Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not acceptable behaviour, Nil Einne. You cannot just take it upon yourself to remove a question becuase you take issue with it. If a user thinks that a posted question breaches the rules of a reference desk it needs to be discussed first. Furthermore, the initial question was not made regarding safety information. This should also serve as a warning to you. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, there's no requirement to discuss removals first. Especially not such atrocious ones as yours was once you left that comment. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I won't comment on the morals or rules of asking a safety related question on Wikipedia, because it's none of my business. However, I would like to suggest that you consider asking your question on Reddit, in a suitable subreddit. You may get better answers there, than on Wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at my last post to the question on the reference desk before it was removed, you'll notice that I stressed that I did not explicitly ask for H&S information. I can't blame you for not being aware of my last post, as it was made after the restoration to which Nil Einne linked in the Incidents Board, with the only record being in the RFD history.
 * I've heard of this Reddit, I may take you up on your advice and investigate it as a potential venue for my query. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Borane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reduction ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Borane check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Borane?client=notify 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) 12:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Inactive project
Hi Plasmic, just letting you know that WikiProject Polymers appears to be dead and WikiProject Chemicals will probably adopt the articles. So there's not much use to add Polymers project to talk pages. PS you might be interested in Polyhydrides. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. I'm not sure what you're implying by the PS, but being a polymer and a hydride does not neccesarily equate to being a polyhydride. If you didn't imply anything and I should be taking it at face value, then yes, I am indeed interested in polyhydrides.
 * PS who can I ask to generate a ball and stick diagram of the iron(II) hydride polymer in the style of beryllium hydride? I've tried User:Benjah-bmm27, but it seems that he is inactive. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The two were not connected: polyhydride and project polymers. I mentioned polyhydride because you were interested in hydrides. Do you have a copy of ChemDraw? I used to have that on an old computer that died, and it seems to be no longer free for education use as it was before. Chemdraw was good at drawing balls with sticks. You could feed it coordinates of atoms to get a crystal structure. I have only seen new line drawings recently, so I don't know who can draw a nice ball diagram. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Benja-bmm27 wrote up User:Benjah-bmm27/MakingMolecules a while ago, and has occasionally posted other scattered notes about how to create images from various data sources. He's active on commons. DMacks (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!
DMacks (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Sulfur forms has been nominated for discussion
Category:Sulfur forms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DS Alerts

 * --Jorm (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Germanium chemistry has been nominated for merging
Category:Germanium chemistry has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Group 4 silicides has been nominated for merging
Category:Group 4 silicides has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 22:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Group 4 silicates has been nominated for merging
Category:Group 4 silicates has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 08:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hazchem E
Template:Hazchem E has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)