User talk:Stone/Archive4

I thought
You might find this suited for your editing habits: WikiCup/2010_Signups. Nergaal (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chemist biographies
Dear Stone: The three biographic entries you refer to and which I created in  Wikipedia, highlight three important fragrance chemists as this domain  has not been covered so far: Academic (Tochtermann),  Analytical/Industrial (Kaiser) and Synthetic/Industrial (Kraft). Concerning the notability criterium, I consider these all meet the requirements of Wikipedia, Tochtermann as a full professor albeit  retired, Kaiser as having pioneered the headspace analytics (and as you  remarked having been awarded a honorary degree), and Kraft as being the  author of highly cited work (criterium 1), eg. ref. 6 and 5 (as you can prove easily in SciFinder or Scopus) that also had major impact on the  area of Fragrance Chemistry including terpene and natural product  chemistry. As author of the Wittig and Wallach section, I hope you agree on the significance of these fields for chemistry. The biographies are created from biographies in the chemical literature, means for  Tochtermann ref. 2 and 3, for Kaiser ref. 2 and Orchid book, for Kraft ref. 2, 5, 6, and 7, in the respective sections. The very existance of biographical scetches, e.g. in feature articles and invited reviews is  to me a criterium that the scientific community judges these chemists  "more notable than the average college instructor/professor". Please refer to the respective citations in case of doubt. Best wishes and greetings, yours Animalic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalic (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Stone: I really do have difficulties to follow your "importance"  statement. Do you find a paper in which someone stated word by word "cars are important" (well maybe the car industry is important for  economy) but just like this? ... or "GC's are important", I wouldn't know how to search this. Personally I see the Wikipedia notability as related to the importance documented in citations and the influence of  ones works on others, but it is very rarely as clear as for the Wittig  reaction, even though Wittig himself risked that the reaction would have  been called after someone else as he published not too many papers on  that initially -- but well  people kept citing him. So sorry for headspace analysis I don't know of such a document, and wouldn't know how to search it, it's a technique  that is rather simple in principle but much useful and developped over  the years, Kaiser and Mookherjee were the two who pioneered these (and  Kaiser has been know for this in the general print media, from Women's  weeklys to Chemistry & Engeneering News, October 25, 1999, 38). Concerning Kraft, the conference bit, well that should be seen in connection with other things, I mean if you are invited for Angewandte  reviews, if you are invited to organize conference, it shows perhaps a  little bit of impact on the scientific community. Perhaps 151 citations is Scopus for the Tetrahedron review 5 shows that as well, but the point  I want to make is that it is rare you can address "notability" by just  one paper, I guess it's the sum of things. Does it help that Kraft is mentioned specifically as fragrance chemist in Frankfurter Allgemeine  Sonntagszeitung, 13. April, 2008, Nr. 15, p. 69, in Chemistry World, February 2009, p. 40, in the Women's magazine Bolero, 2003 Oktober, p.  71, in Sonntagszeitung, 2007, 20. Sept., p. 80, or that he's exemplarily shown as a Fragrance Chemist in the American/Australian school  textbook, Nelsons Chemistry VCE units 3&4 (by Jenny Sharwood), p.  219-221, or  that he is interviewed as expert in a Wunderwelt Wissen TV documentary  on musks? I consider the scientific papers, and their impact on the advancement of a certain domain of more importance, and this is seen in  citations, number of paper, but I think also in invitations to write  reviews or organize conferences, as a notable scientist is rather a  guarantee to get good speakers. But I see you want to tag these reviews for notability issues, and then propose for deletion. So seems I can't provide you with the arguments you require to be satisfied. I don't want to put citation indexes in, nor quote "unscientific" sources. Sad aspect is that a biophysist like Luca Turin gets covered in Wikipedia for a vibration theory of odors that is rejected by the  scientific community, just by stirring up media, and that the people who  do the solid science of Fragrance Chemistry and are (mainly) recognized  by the scientific community are not. This leads to a distorted picture and much deminishes the scientific quality of Wikipedia. Regards, Animalic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalic (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Stone: Thanks for the comment and the information, I thought you need  peer-reviewed  scientific references, and not newspapers. So I learned something more, thanks and greetings AnimalicAnimalic  (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Stone: Agree wouldn't trust Bild-Zeitung, and personally I wouldn't like  quoting newspapers anyway, as a lot of things in there are wrong,  sometimes on purpose. For instance movie stars etc. can get their popularity/notability created by advertisement agencies, ...   but OK,  one has to set some criteria, though I would want more "experts"  involved in writing Wikipedia entries. But I understand more now how Wikipedia works. I was writing on the "Chypre" bit, and found it so difficult to cite verifyable information, as e.g. in perfumery many  things are secret, and thus terms often get a blurry meaning to the  public. However, often I am amazed also, e.g. about the quality of some chemical entries, and that's why I found Wikipedia might be worthwhile  now to write in. However, planned initially to do sort of aroma chemical profiles with chemistry, odor and use, but there's almost no quotable  info, would have to be own knowledge, so seems difficult to do. Let's see. Also wanted to add some more fragrance chemists, eg. Günther Ohloff, Charles Fehr, but your notability criteria make it a bit  difficult as well. Crazy to think CuF2 was even up to deletion and is still considered a stub ...    so keep up the good work, and it's indeed  a huge amount of work necessary still. Greetings Animalic (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stone: Thanks for the doi's and the citation template, which is in fact  convenient. So along these lines I reworked the other citations and added a few for the respective materials. I also added a short description, also to put the tox reference you found into perspective. However, while I wouldn't want to put a whole Synopsis of eg. 'Romeo and Juliet' in a Shakespear bio, I didn't want to overdo. I think these deserve chemicals entries, as well they are really quite used a lot now,  in many more fragrances than in the list. But well, I am not yet familiar with putting formulas, and in generals the aroma chemicals  category is in an overall stub state, even the damascone article is joke  so far. Crazy if you think about its impact on eg. Poison (Dior) etc., since it's everywhere. So if one wants to make aroma chemicals available with odor descriptions, synthesis, use, etc. there's just sooo much to  do. Concerning the Natsch reference, I was in fact astonished to see Serenolide in there as a sensitizer, at least at first it looked like  this in your edit, so in fact I did not know this reference, so accessed  it (with your doi) and found by reading it carefully, that in fact he  states only weak sensitizing potential. So I adapted the text accordingly. Actually compared to other musks, it is really pretty good. It's always a way of putting things into perspective, but yes it has a weak sensitizing potential, true, less actually than if you touch a  lemon or orange due to the limonene content of their peel. So the original statement you put is a bit misleading, esp. if you read the  data in the Natsch paper. Concerning your tag, well, as you know, I can't prevent you from putting tags, but I tried to provide arguments. If you don't find them convincing, well, can't help. So if you want the community to decide on notability you can suggest the three biographies  for deletion and let the community decide. True there are a lot of these tags on other articles, but I often wonder about the sense. Rather should someone improve then wasting their time putting tags everywhere,  though I agree must be fun. I don't want to put e.g. newspaper articles on Kaiser or Kraft to prove their notability, as I think they don't  really belong in a scientists bio, and wouldn't it even more look like  advertisement and give more arguments for a possible self advertisement. Tried to keep these bios informative without too much praise. Don't think Haarmann or anybody else so far got 6 new odorants on the market  in their livetime, but of course it's easier to write on dead people  (far more than half of the pharma chemists die without one drug compound  on the market, and for fragrance chemists it's not much better believe  me). Search eg. 'Pomarose' in AltaVista or Google, and you find that e.g. this is used in DKNY Be Delicious and Unforgivable, and well  without this Wikipedia entry you can't even know what that is. OK agree, there should be an aroma chemicals page on that, but even now they have  a name, an odor description and a journal reference. But really I want to see if it's worthwile editing in Wikipedia, and we will know if you  suggest it for deletion. The tags will lead nowhere if the arguments so far didn't help. Animalic (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, dead people are easier --  amazing for instance how Michael Jackson's image changed as soon as he  was dead. Plus you can more easily judge the impact of one's work; however, this usually then is way back, and thus, the immediate impact  is less, and well Wikipedia's difference to printed references is the  immediacity, and that's the things one often wants to look up and  doesn't find anywhere else ...   thanks for your kind comments, I  actually learned a lot already from this and in looking up the tools,  that's also where the chembox is in, and I explicitly need to learn and  make up my mind how to best draw and place formulas, when I see the  chemistry articles style varies a lot, and there are pixel images and  svg files. Is there a way to keep editability in ChemDraw? I mean that you can place things in Wikipedia where you double click on and get it  to ChemDraw or SciFinder ...   will look up the Structure Drawing group,  ...  and couldn't agree more, it's better spending time on editing and  writing solid articles than discussions. Greetings, Animalic (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Limonen.png
A tag has been placed on File:Limonen.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion,  because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty  image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by  adding    to the top of  the page that  has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy  deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the  criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to  the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's  policies and guidelines. Ja Ga talk  23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these  rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues  concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please  remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves  to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are  eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17  19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carl Schotten
Hello! Your submission of Carl Schotten at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 12:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK - Nebulium
Hello! Your submission of Nebulium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sasata (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Guido Goldschmiedt

 * 352 views --Stone (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Andreas Sigismund Marggraf
Hello! Your submission of Andreas Sigismund Marggraf at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have a minor comment there regarding Rudolf Christian Böttger nomination. Materialscientist (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Schotten

 * 217 views --Stone (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eugen Baumann

 * 171 views --Stone (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Christopher Whiteoak
Hello Stone. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Christopher Whiteoak, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Whilst at Unilver he made several contributions to the fields of bleach cataysis" is an assertion of importance. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lorenz Florenz Friedrich von Crell

 * 340 views.--Stone (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Border Cave

 * 3.3kviews --Stone (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ovid among the Scythians
Thank you for warning about the error of the dates of nomination's entry. It was repaired. Auréola (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nebulium

 * 2.8kviews --Stone (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rudolf Christian Böttger

 * no data --Stone (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Andreas Sigismund Marggraf

 * no data --Stone (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

elements
Yeah, I am fine with having a conom on Cs. Te needs some more tydinig and I will give it a work sometimes this weekend. As for GTs, group 4, 5, and 6 are all doable but I just haven't figured out a way to setup the period 7 elements to get them to GA (the group articles should be pretty easy once the elements are ready). Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * period 7. Nergaal (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ngwenya Mine

 * 2.0kviews --Stone (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Magnesium GAN
I'm not sure whether I can help there as a referee or a contributor. Just wanted to note that the article desperately needs references. Not only there are uncited paragraphs, but even withing cited paragraphs there are strong uncited statements. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yepp, that is why there is a disambig notice at the top of their pages :-) Materialscientist (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sea firefly
I may plan to put that article for DYK; it depends on whether I have time and enough information is readily available from reliable sources. As for the guidelines thing: I am not sure why that happens; I see it three times as well. Most editnotices I see "double up", but I thought this was due to certain user settings I had. Do you have wikEd enabled?  Intelligent  sium  00:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Caesium/archive1
Cheers! Nergaal (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind taking care of the last three tags? Also, do you have any review article to replace some of the USGS review referencing? One reviewer is unhappy with the high dependency on a single source. Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will try today! I hope we get through quickly.--Stone (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Vargula hilgendorfii

 * 1.7k viewers

DYK for Franz Martin Hilgendorf

 * 181 viewers

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Copernicium‎
I saw that, and thought for myself that I better let it stay - maybe if I revert the war starts .. I personally don't care which nationality. Materialscientist (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC
Mein Deutsch ist nicht gut. Ich will Englisch sprechen.

I was wondering if you could help me to find third party sources talking about the history of IUPAC. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and I am working on this page for a school project. A link to the project page is on the talk page for IUPAC. I noticed you made it a start class article a while ago, but we have made large additions to it since. I can read German pretty well, but I have trouble thinking of sentences, so if you need to say something in German I should be able to understand. If you have any criticism or help you could give me just let me know. Thank you. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have this book ? --Stone (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the book. I have used it a couple times already in the article.  The other sources look interesting though.  I will put them to good use.  Thank you.Salamakajakawaka (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Josef Maria Eder

 * Views of the DYK articles Carl von Than 315, Josef Maria Eder 345 and Paul Friedländer 300.--Stone (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hugo Weidel

 * 1200 views

DYK for iron-55

 * 1900 views

DYK for Stefan Meyer (physicist)

 * Stefan Meyer (physicist) 1.4 kviews
 * Institute for Radium Research, Vienna 1.1 kviews

DYK for Adolf Karl Ludwig Claus

 * 1.4 kviews

DYK for Ian Axford

 * Good job Stone :–) Kiwipat (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1.1. kviews for Ian Axford and 910 views for Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy

Help needed on Nobel Prize
If you have access to full text of this, can you check whether it mentions Donald Weiss regarding the controversy on 2000 Nobel Prize on organic conductors? Materialscientist (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no access for me. --Stone (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * google books gives also no hit when searched in the book for Weiss.--Stone (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow
I'm impressed. You sure have made a lot of contributions to wikipedia. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 17:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What point? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * East Europe mailing list? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I don't understand any of it. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruthenium chemical vapor deposition
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ruthenium chemical vapor deposition, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.preciousbullion.com/Ruthenium::Chemical_vapor_deposition_of_ruthenium/encyclopedia.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved this section
The first fire in the transformators of the nuclear power plant Krümmel in 2006 forced a closure of the power plant for over two years, while a second fire in June 2009 in the same transformator led to another closure. Due to this incidents the Prime Minister of Schleswig-Holstein, Peter Harry Carstensen anounced that this will be "letzter Versuch" (their last try) before complete closure of the facility.


 * Hi Stone, I have moved this section under some critizism of vattenfall. Funny that you have put this on only Vattenfall when its also owned by German E.ON as well.

Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research
You work there? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 01:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Yes!--Stone (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you do there? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 21:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Scientist for MOMA of the Exomars project.--Stone (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? Seriously? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 23:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rutherfordium/GA1
Hello, according to the history page of Rutherfordium, it appears that you were a major contributor to the article. The article is currently up for GAN review, so it would be helpful if you could pitch in and help address some of the concerns the reviewer listed. &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 22:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I managed to slide through the Group 4 element article's GA review. After we can get this article passed for its GA, nominating the entire set for good topic should be quite easy. &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 06:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harald. It's fine to move the bulk of the info regarding nucleosynthetic reactions to another article in order to produce a more concise article for the general reader. If you need any specific help with tidying it up, let me know and I'll see what I can do.--Drjezza (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you look at two new articles?
Hi Stone, I wonder if I could ask you to look at two new articles on the subject of copper? They are from a brand new editor who will I think soon become an excellent contributor. He has many more articles to contribute and is very keen to write more. He is however still learning how to write for Wikipedia in terms of style and approach. One of the two articles already picked up two tags. I would be very grateful if you could cast your experienced eye over these two articles and let User:Enviromet know what you think of them. Many thanks and all best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Antimicrobial properties of copper
 * Antimicrobial copper touch surfaces

Your GA nomination of Ruthenium
The article Ruthenium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ruthenium for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Walter Dieminger
Hello! Your submission of Walter Dieminger at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Walter Dieminger
Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 18k views

DYK for Quadricyclane
Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Karl-Otto Kiepenheuer
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thank you for your help with my recent recent springtime activity. Quadricyclane was especially appreciated.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! I hope the students saw theiw work being on the Mainpage and getting a lot of people having a look.--Stone (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikicup Round 2
Hey, I think you accidentally marked yourself red instead of yellow on the Round 2 archive. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, the overall list was the more important one. If you find some other mistakes please tell me.--Stone (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, we both got in the newsletter! Anyway, I wanted to thank you for helping me out with the list. I was about to go over there and finish it now when I noticed that you completed it! Thanks man and goo luck in the new "pool of death".--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My real life will b a little busy with conferences, so I will hardly manage to get the points for the next round. ut I liked to help with the lists. Now they are in alphabetic order and searching is a little easier.--Stone (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Combined DYK hook proposal
... that an antipathy between Paul ten Bruggencate and Karl-Otto Kiepenheuer while they worked at Göttingen Observatory resulted in creation of Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics? (adding the part on their collaboration after deaths of those scientists makes the hook too long) Materialscientist (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kiepenheuer is already in a quewe for May 3rd.--Stone (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks very good to me. Kiepenheuer tried to work with the Göttingen Observatory but found that a cooperation was impossible due to pollitical points of view was opposit to that of Bruggencate.--Stone (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll put the triple hook to the queue 3 and can further tweak it if necessary. The rivalry hook will be more attractive. Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Walden was considered "Russian" and thus there were good sources on the Russian web. I can help with such biographies (Russia related). Materialscientist (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Göttingen Observatory
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paul ten Bruggencate
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Youvan Deletion
Please see my talk page and recent edit on Youvan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgettttttte (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, new to this, maybe on the article's discussion page. Anyway, it's under the article's history. Bridgettttttte (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stone, I made a post to Bridgettttttte's talk page. Thanks for giving me the heads-up. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stone, I added references to Youvan. Now the numbering system on the references can't be edited. What do I do? Bridgettttttte (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stone, sorry to bother you again. Now, some of the references are correct, and some have nothing at all to do with the article. Are we getting eaten by a bad bot? Bridgettttttte (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Douglas_Youvan#Reference_Reconstruction_from_history_of_article shows the 4 references in error and then makes the correct citations. But I don't know how to go further to fix the references in the article. 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgettttttte (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the reference fix. I still can't figure out where  is located. Is it semi-protected?  Do the bots run over it, wherever it is? Bridgettttttte (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Struve
Atomic % are Ok in caesium alloy (you probably saw my edit there). Another matter: I am thinking to expand the scientists of the Struve family for DYK and started with Jacob Struve. Major source there (ref. 1) is in German, and my German is poor without a dictionary. It would be great if you could briefly check whether I missed something important in the source - there are not many on Jacob. Materialscientist (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this source in Google books, but it is too brief and the font is hard to read (for me). My ref. 1 is more detailed (in the meantime, I found a Russian source, that makes things easier for me :). Materialscientist (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing which is different, is that the ref above states that he went to the University of Kiel. But the rest looks very good for me. Have a look here: --Stone (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Russian source (quite detailed and differently written from ref. 1) says Kiel was closer to him geographically but he finally went to Göttingen and studied with Kästner there. Possibly, he tried Kiel first. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Russian source (quite detailed and differently written from ref. 1) says Kiel was closer to him geographically but he finally went to Göttingen and studied with Kästner there. Possibly, he tried Kiel first. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Iberian Pyrite Belt
Hello! Your submission of Iberian Pyrite Belt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the articles and your nomination for Allchar deposit/lorandite. Correct me if I'm wrong (was used, being used or will be used, in the articles and DYK hook), by I thought LOREX experiment is just finished this april. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, no results are published yet and the researchers are still working we should change to being used.--Stone (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Moon FAR
Many thanks for fixing all of those reference formats. Glad to see the article has now been kept. Good luck with ExoMars :) Iridia (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. ExoMars needs the luck. Thanks! --Stone (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Iberian Pyrite Belt
Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Allchar deposit & Lorandite at DYK
I've selected this hook, but it read oddly grammatically to me -- in particular I've pluralised neutrino -- it's not an area I know anything about, so I'd be grateful if you could check that I haven't made a mistake. The edited version is currently in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Allchar deposit
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Group 11 element
Hi Stone, can you do it similar here: Group 11 element. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done!--Stone (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The next group will be the Group 5 element, with Vanadium and two new images (Nb + Ta). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010, to which you were are a party, has been rejected. Full details are at the case page (which will be deleted after a reasonable time). If you have any queries, please contact a committee mediator or the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.) <

DYK for Carlin–type gold deposit
Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Theodor Grotthuss
 — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Friedrich Seifert
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mountain Pass rare earth mine
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Goldstrike mine
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rhodium
The GA review for Rhodium has now been done. Just a few minor improvements to satisfy criterion #3 and it's good to go (See Talk:Rhodium/GA1)! Nice work overall! WTF? (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thallium
Congratulations! I've just passed it as a Good Article. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of tert-Butanesulfinamide
Hello! Your submission of tert-Butanesulfinamide at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for tert-Butanesulfinamide
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

DYK for Hermann Goldschmidt
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Stone, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings, Stone! I hope you have a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Solubility of Rhenium (VII) Oxide
Hi, i was wondering if there is any information about the solubility of rhenium (VII) oxide? I was looking and all i could find that it was soluble in alkali and acid solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringlish (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am only able to get 56k via a modem, so I have no chance to do this until 15th. --Stone (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply after a few months
Hello, after a loong time. You were inquiring several months ago what happened to me. In the middle of the caesium FAC fiasco I understood that the time I spend on wikipedia is a waste and not appreciated. So I took a leave and used the time to do more useful things in real life. I may get back but I don't think I will really edit here significantly. Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

About Red-Al
Thank for the explanation of "Red" in "Red-Al". Is there any web source describe this ? Thank in advance--Wolfch (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank for your reply. I guessed "Red" is red color first but found that the color is not red. Your guess is reasonable.--Wolfch (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Platinum
The article Platinum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Platinum for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the William Richmond article
Many thanks for re-naming the article which I had called "Doctor Bill Richmond" as "William Richmond" - that does sound rather more encyclopaedic. I had always heard that him referred to as "Bill Richmond" but I see that there are already some people by that name who have entries in Wikipedia. I really think that if you type "Bill Richmond" into the box on the left, a disambiguation page should appear. I do think, incidentally, from what I have heard and read of this man,that he is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Caesium
Hey, you might want to co-nom it. Nergaal (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This one was in the queue since early this year. That's get it from the to-do side of the desk to the done side.--Stone (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thorium
Thanks for your rewrite of the Thorium intro. The information is much more encyclopedic and relevant. Billgordon1099 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cobalt flame
It was a cobalt flame, by the way. I heated cobalt chloride on a copper(!!!) wire. The copper wire in and of itself only produced a very dim hardly visible green flame. It was for the most part colorless. The cobalt(II) chloride hexahydrate spat sparks all over when it dehydrated, then started to emit a flame. There were three parts to the flame. The center was a narrow tall orange flame (not visible clearly in the picture). Then there was a blue-white flame around that. Around that was the green flame. It was actually cobalt making the flame. I heated the cobalt(II) chloride on iron wire and it did the same thing. Too bad my camera does not have good color accuracy. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the pictures. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I could try that. That should clean the copper wire. Right now the copper wire is coated with Cu2O. But why would adding cobalt(II) chloride make the copper suddenly produce a color in the flame? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The cobalt chloride has crystal water and during heating you create cobalt oxide and hydrochloric acid. In the heat of the flame you generate copper chloride which is volatile and creates the coloured flame.
 * I could also try to heat the cobalt chloride on a wooden splint. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Better use another metal, like iron.--Stone (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I could post the picture of that, too. Anyway, the copper was a nice pink color. The copper produced a much dimmer flame that went out in about 10 seconds. The cobalt flame kept going and going and going when I held the wire in the flame. It was a very bright long-lasting flame. That is why I think that the cobalt did produce the flame. Feel free to comment. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I washed the HCl off the wire before I burnt it. Was that right? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Washing is not necessary!--Stone (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I cleaned and moistened a copper wire with concentrated HCl. It produced a bright green flame. I repeated the experiment. It still produced the flame. The flame did not last long, though. The copper oxidized to copper(II) oxide. The copper(II) oxide reacted with the hydrogen chloride to make copper(II) chloride. The copper(II) chloride made a bright green coloration to the flame. After about 3 seconds, the hydrogen chloride ran out and the green flame disappeared. There was a tiny bit of copper(II) chloride vapor sitting in the flame after the copper wire was removed, making an occasional flash of green.
 * In conclusion: The cobalt flame's bright green coloration was produced by the copper. The overexaggerated blue flame nearer the center was produced by the cobalt. The red narrow flame in the center of the flame was produced by both cobalt and copper. Thanks for your time. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I did the same experiments in the 1980s so it was fun to see that the curiosity for flame spectroscopy never dies. Although masters of the business Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff died over 100 years ago. With the help of the flame several elements were discoverd! Have you tested boric acid or borate yet? --Stone (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting although my camera does not capture the colors (especially for potassium) as good as seeing it. I think sodium borate (what I have) will just produce the prominent yellow sodium flame instead of the nice green boron flame. Lithium is nice, too. I recall that caesium was discovered by flame spectroscopy. Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sodium borate with 2ml methanol or ethanol and than one drop of acid (best sufuric acid) and than you generate the borate ester which burns with green flame. --Stone (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Other elements were also discovered by spectroscopy, rubidium and thallium are other examples. I liked to read the original publication of Bunsen and Kirchhoff. They also had this sodium problem.They ignited some sodium compound in a large room and than did spectroscopy with a Bunsen burner without sample. They detected sodium and with that method they determined the detection level of sodium flame spectroscopy.--Stone (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would assume you have heard of borax bead tests. When I did a borax bead test, all of the chemicals produced about the same color. I did do it on an iron wire though. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See User:Chemicalinterest/Chemistry Lab. I don't have sulfuric acid or methanol or ethanol. I tried to precipitate boric acid, but I couldn't. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Battery acid in car batteries is sulfuric acid. And 93% alcohol is sold for cleaning purpose, it has some nast stuff inside to prevent everybody from drinking it but it is good enough for experiments.--Stone (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you have an e-mail address or do you prefer not to disclose it? That would prevent cluttering of your talk page. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I have no problem with a talk on my talk page! I like it when it is a little more busy than usual.--Stone (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not want any lead contamination because I do not have a laboratory. I don't want to make a mess on a kitchen stove. What would I do with the pounds of lead in the battery? I have isopropanol alcohol but not ethanol or methanol. Would that work? Any way, I can make manganese, copper, or zinc have a green flame instead of boron. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest to get a whole battery! Only a few drops from a old battery. The lead sulfate is nearly unsoluable in sulfuric acid. This is the trick why the battery works. The isopropanol might work although than you need the acid. --Stone (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The borax bead test is very sensitive on impurities and the iron ruins everything. A magnesia stick would be the better alternative. --Stone (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but we recycle all of our old batteries here in the US. There is an extra tax on lead-acid batteries that is refunded if you return a dead battery. I plan to complete a home version of the chloralkali process tonight. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know why chemicals are dumped in the ocean? No one wants tea without sugar! --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Her the same. You pay 15 Euro per battery and you get the 15 Euro back if you give it back. I saw once in Ireland a tinker emptying lead batteries and than smashing them with a sledge hammer to get to the lead. I think he sold it afterwards. The chloralkali process is easy but it has also some problems. There are several products you might want to get out and dependding on that you have to tune the conditions of the experiment. Possible reaction products are NaOH, HCl, NaClO, NaClO3 and NaClO4. So I hope your experiment works I did the same and it worked well with the one problem that the electrodes at which the chlorine reaction happens are always the weakest point. The use of ruthenium oxide or platinum was out of reach at that time so I used graphite. I ended with a dark black reaction mixture and after several filtrations I had what I wanted to have. I hope you know that chlorine is very toxic, they used it in WWI as a poison gas in the trench warfare. The guy how had this "nice" idea got the Nobel price in the year the war ended!--Stone (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have my own patented (joke) way to get rid of the chlorine. You use an iron nail or screw at the anode. The chlorine reacts with the iron to make a ferric chloride solution, absorbing all of the chlorine. I want to do it in two different containers. One will be salty and at the anode. The other one will be pure and at the cathode. I want to collect the sodium hydroxide, not the chlorine or hypochlorite. Right now the only base I have is ammonia, that can form complexes with certain chemicals or react differently from other bases. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, my chloralkali electrolysis is going in two paint mixing containers with a piece of a shower hose stuffed with salty tissues serves as the salt bridge. It is connected to a 24V damper (device used to close HVAC ducts) transformer with a bridge rectifier from an old stereo making it DC. It is taking about 50 milliamps. A tiny bit of hydrogen is being produced, which should increase as the ions start flowing. FYI, Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it works. The sodium hydroxide will not be free of chloride than, but for most reaction this might not be a problem. --Stone (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does work, but I didn't produce much sodium hydroxide. I dissolved a nail, 2 copper wires, and a screw almost completely. It took 300 milliamps after it started going. A mixture of black iron oxides, green ferrous hydroxide, and red ferric oxide was in the positive container, along with pieces of metal. The sodium hydroxide had a pH of 13 1/2, approximately by a pH paper. I can try to make cobalt(II) hydroxide now without the blue form made by ammonia. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Can you extract sulfuric acid from a sealed gel cell? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds not like anything I would like to do. The gel will become more and more liquid if you try to extract it with water and in the end a nearly liquid sulfuric acid will remain, which has no real use in the lab.--Stone (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will the sodium hydroxide absorb carbon dioxide from air and make sodium carbonate if it is evaporated without heating in the air? I broke my sole beaker. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate the joy in experimenting in the lab. But if you just want sodium hydroxide, why don't you just buy some drain cleaner, and pick out the aluminum bits? You can still play with the chloralkali process (I've tried it, it's really fun. I only used 10 volts or so from a rectifier (commercial, of course), and pencils sharpened on both ends as electrodes. This is the sort of thing which brings chemistry into people's homes. Anyway, I think 4 volts is enough (need to check the redox potentials). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see oven cleaner in an aerosol can. My mom doesn't want to buy it because she says it makes too much fumes when sprayed. Maybe I can get oven cleaner. But I wanted some now. You can use any metal for the cathode by the way. It won't corrode any more than the corrosive action of the water. You do have to dry it off, though. I used 24 volts because I put pure water in the cathode container and the salt bridge had to conduct the ions over. It did evaporate the solutions too quickly, though.


 * I don't know whether I would want to pick out tons of aluminium bits. They might be good for thermite, though, although I don't make explosives in my lab.


 * I do not want to make chlorine. I also closed my sodium hydroxide container for fear that it will just make sodium carbonate crystals. My lithium hydroxide container is getting covered with lithium carbonate crystals when it sits in the open. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The drain cleaner would also be my first and best suggestion to get some sodium or potassium hydroxide. There are numerous brands and the one I used was 100% pure small pellets of sodium hydroxide, AbflussFrei . There are brands without aluminium, most of the time you do not need it. For the electrolysis it might be better to use a flower pot made from terra cotta as a Diaphragm cell the only thing I would not try is a

Mercury cell process at home without a fume hood.--20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the sodium hydroxide and used it to make red cobalt(II) hydroxide, which I couldn't make before. I also used it to make white tin(II) oxide hydrate which was heated to make blue-black tin(II) oxide. FYI, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please drop a note on my talk page if you are tired of hearing about chemistry. I will not be insulted. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Einsteinium und Fermium
Hallo, ich habe die deutschen Artikel ausgebaut und daher die englischen entsprechend untereinander abgeglichen. Schau mal bitte nach, ob die Umstellungen in den englischen Artikeln prinzipiell OK sind. Viele Grüße --JWBE (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vielendank! Ich werde mal reinschauen, obwohl ich als Chemiker der alten Schule (keiner meiner Profs war jünger als sechzig) nur im ganzen mol Ansätze mache möchte und Zeug das man nicht als mol kaufen kann den Physikern überlassen habe. Transurane sind als Elemente halt nie persönlich bei mir über den Labortisch gewandert (glücklicherweise).--Stone (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Cesium
Peace. All is well. I wasn't going to leave wikipedia, just the cesium article. I don't know who added the reaction language, actually, so this is not a matter of me defending my own edits (that I'm aware of-- I possibly could have added this long ago).

I'm less angry now, and more irritated-- mostly with the idea of people refusing to believe many sorts of evidence, when they haven't seen something themselves. If other editors say it, and the texts say it, and youtube shows it, why not believe it, unless you have good reason not to? Anyhow, thanks for your note. I left a list of texts, which should all be WP:RS sources, for the idea that cesium is far more reactive than potassium, at least for the things they both react WITH. I'm not going to edit cesium until I calm down more. S B Harris 23:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Giovanni Francisco Vigani
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 29, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 29, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#0F0F0F">Ta <font color="#DAA520">lk <font color="#2C1608">C. 04:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #D4AF37; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

Caesium is the chemical element with atomic number 55. It is a soft, silvery-gold alkali metal with a melting point of 28 °C (83 °F), which makes it one of only five metals that are liquid at or near room temperature. Caesium has physical and chemical properties similar to those of rubidium and potassium. The metal is extremely reactive and pyrophoric, reacting with water even at −116 °C. It is the least electronegative element that has stable isotopes, of which it has only one, caesium-133. Caesium is mined mostly from pollucite, while the radioisotopes, especially caesium-137, are extracted from waste produced by nuclear reactors. Two German chemists, Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff, discovered caesium in 1860 by the newly developed method of flame spectroscopy. The first small-scale applications for caesium have been as a "getter" in vacuum tubes and in photoelectric cells. In 1967, a specific frequency from the emission spectrum of caesium-133 was chosen to be used in the definition of the second by the International System of Units. Since then, caesium has been widely used in atomic clocks. Since the 1990s, the largest application of the element has been as caesium formate for drilling fluids. It has a range of applications in the production of electricity, in electronics, and in chemistry. The radioactive isotope caesium-137 has a half-life of about 30 years and is used in medical applications, industrial gauges, and hydrology. (more...)

DYK for Carl Scheibler
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Benzoic acid-chemical-reaction-2.png
Hallo Stone. Beim Anhydrid gefällt mir die lineare Bindung –O– nicht besonders. Falls du zustimmst und eine neue Version erstellst, so lade diese doch gleich bei Commons hoch. --Leyo 09:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK muss aber noch suchen wo ich das alte ding habe. Vielleicht wäre ja ein svg auch ganz schick.--Stone (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gibst du Bescheid, sobald du fündig geworden bist? Ja, SVG wäre schick, aber auch eine PNG-Grafik in hoher Auflösung ist OK. --Leyo 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Meine Galle hat rebeliert und ich liege flach! --Stone (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Troctolite 76535
I'd like to thank you for gathering all of these excellent references for the Troctolite 76535 article. I'm just dropping this note for you to let you know that your excellent work does not go unnoticed. I apologize for my belatedness in noticing this and will expand the article utilizing the info you have found as time allows. Thanks again, <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No Problem I was busy with other things so I only dumped the refs. I will also try to improve the article!--Stone (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gustav August Munzer
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Handling edit requests
Hi! Thanks for handling the edit request on Uranium. I just wanted to let you know that when you do so, it's helpful if you change the template to  --that way it won't show up on the category page and other editors know the request is complete. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The templates are getting complicated by there vast number and I will not devote most of my time to deal with it, but I know they help sometime. The documentation and the manuals how to work with templates is done mostly for computer geeks and not for normal editors. I will try to learn but I can't promise to come even while a lot of people create templates.--Stone (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree--I find myself looking up the details all the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)