Jump to content

User talk:Plasmic Physics/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

"Explicit hydrogens"

I know this is not the first time I've alerted you that you are badly misusing this term. [1]--no, the only hydrogens that are visible are the ones that are required by the rules of skeletal diagrams. Most are not explicit. Similarly [2] very few are explicit (I assume you know that there are more than 8 H!). Skeletal diagrams are confusing enough for non-chemists, please don't make it worse by misdescribing them or using misleading plain-English descriptions. DMacks (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm refering to hydrogens which are emphisised unecessarily in cases where they are normaly implied by the type of moeity. Cases where the bond between hydrogen and another atom is shown. What should be said instead?

Note: you corrected me before when I was using implicit instead of explicit. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There are zero "hydrogens which are emphisised unecessarily" in stannole (the same situation as I corrected you at [3]). And only a few of them are emphazised unnecessarily in Red-Al (many are not). The basic problem is that readers who already know how to read this type of diagram already know what you are saying. And readers who do not understand it need much more help than just that some H are (or are not) visible. How about just saying that it is the "Skeletal formula"? That article tells everything one needs to know to interpret everything about the diagram. For example of how even knowing that there are some optional ones visible (same styling used in Red-Al) is not very useful, see Talk:Ethyl_sulfate#Ethyl Sulfate. DMacks (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I can switch over to skeletal formula. It is common practice to remove explit hydrogens from a skeletal formula, and draw it in consensed form, showing explicit hydrogens is the exception. The stannylidene moeity in the stannole would normaly be drawn as c --Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Explicit means "visible" not "bonds". Both of SnH2 and H–Sn–H have "explicit hydrogens" on the tin because the letter "H" is written. This is clearly explained in the skeletal formula article... DMacks (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not what I learned. What should I change it to, "uncondensed", "expanded"? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Solubility of silicon dioxide

I was always wondering where do these numbers come from? It shouldn't be soluble in water at all. Small values like 0.006 g L-1 should be close to the accuracy of experiment (purity of SiO2 used, etc.). Also, fine SiO2 particles (present in or on the studied sample) might form a suspension rather than actually dissolve. Materialscientist (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A study was conducted on the solubility of alpha-quartz in water, by dissolving a quantity under pressure and elevated temperature to create a supersaturated solution, then returning pressure and temperature slowly to STP. The result was a true solubility of 6 ppm in water at 25 degrees Celcius. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
.. meaning it was dissolved at HPHT conditions and the solution was (partly) metastable at ambient conditions (?). Is this relevant to solubility at ambient conditions, which is what the infobox entry is about? Water visibly etches diamond at HPHT conditions. Materialscientist (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
[4] Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have access to full text. The abstract is not convincing as it reads as the result was obtained from one sample whereas others showed different behavior. By default, I am skeptical that it was really dissolved SiO2 rather than suspension or other silicon-related materials. I can check on monday how many other articles cited this one. Materialscientist (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can at least confirm that silicon dioxide exists in equilibrium with silicic acid in water:
O2Si + 2 H2O ↔ H4O4Si
Similiar to carbon dioxide:
CO2 + H2O ↔ CH2O3 Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Silica is quite soluble in water and its solubility increase with pH. The analogy with carbon dioxide and carbonate is correct and useful to understand the chemical speciation of silicic acid and silicate in water. By the way, I wonder why you sort the elements by increasing atomic mass number in the formula you used. Although not incorrect (I follow the reasoning), such a practice is absolutely not common in inorganic chemistry and geochemistry and strongly differs from the common usage. Have a look in a good textbook of geochemistry such as Stumm and Morgan (1996) Aquatic chemistry. John Wiley and Sons.
SiO2 + 2 H2O ↔ H4SiO4 = Si(OH)4
Similiar to carbon dioxide:
CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3
Amorphous silica such as chalcedony or chert is ten time more soluble than quartz. Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the Hill system, although it has its flaws, it is quick, easy, and autoconsistent, and it allows me to disregard structural formula.

Chert and chalcedony may be more soluble, but they are not homocrystalomorphic, and quartz is the main crystalomorph at STP with wich the chembox is concerned. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The solubility of chert, chalcedony or amorphous silica is often used in thermodynamical and geochemical modelling to account for the solubility of silica arising from the dissolution of clay minerals present in sediments. It is of practical use for many geochemists. By the way, as far as I know, the Hill system is not used by geochemist for representing chemical formulae of simple inorganic species such as silicic acid: they prefer the classical notation (H4SiO4), or the simple structural formula, Si(OH)4, which I also like for describing the aqueous chemical speciation and surface complexation reactions, because it directly provides visual information on the reaction mechanism and help me to better understand the phenomena and the processes at work. I think that the Hill system is more useful for calculating the molecular weight of large or complex organic molecules. Chemical notation habits likely vary from field to field and from the way chemistry is teached to students. Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a fundamental reason why geochemists do not use quartz: the ratio of quartz to other types of silica is low. It's illogical to use a minor contributor as a representitive in a population sample. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Silanols and Category:Silicon hydrides

Just a quick note to say I removed the speedy deletion tags from these categories. At present there is no valid criteria for speedy deletion under which they might be deleted, since the previous deletions were not as a result of a formal deletion discussion, but rather were themselves speedy deletions under criterion C1 (empty categories). If these categories should be deleted for sure, WP:CFD is the proper place to go.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation 2

Now, it is not initially your fault, but it shows that you apply your work without any form of sense. You have been asked before to stop (over)categorisation, as you make to many mistakes, and still: here you replace a category to a category that you created .. where was this new categorisation discussed anyway, really, calling an aldehyde an aldehyde is more than specific enough. However, the compound is not an aldehyde, it is not a carbaldehyde. You apply your categorisation just because you decide it, without using any chemical sense and, simply, against community consensus. You could have repaired the error, but no. This is a formamide, although calling this an amide is more than specific enough (and guess what, there is where it was befor eone of the other re-categorisators changed it.

I have now proposed community sanctions against this overcategorisation. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Again ..Categories. I am sorry, but I feel that this now really has to stop, I feel you can not be trusted with these edits, and you have been informed before that this is NOT with consensus, to say the least, it is controversial. I therefore think that you are one of the people that needs to be santioned here. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

PubChem Seems to disagree, as they list it as a carbaldehyde. The aldehyde category is unhelpful in colating chemically similiar compounds. Yes, they all have aldehyde groups, but they don't have much more in common, thus I reason that the new category is reasonable. Moreover, the Project is non-responsive to concerns I submit over categorization, so I did not submit it there. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow .. pubchem. What does IUPAC think?

Unhelpful to who, Plasmic Physics. Categorisation is merely a means to find a compound, not to specifically describe it, which has been told to you over and over. And that is exactly why the community is not responsive to your calls to overspecify, as they tell not to do it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the categorisation changes that you unilaterally applied. As suggested earlier, discuss new categories first before applying them - and if you do not get response or no consensus - assume that you do not have consensus to apply the changes and just do not do them. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What IUPAC thinks is irrelevant, you said so yourself at WT:Chem discussions about SNs. Overspecification is a POV, not a black and white distinction. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I did not voice that about other sources. Sorry. But if the compound is called 'N-formylpiperidine, then it uses the part 'formyl', which means, that it contains a formyl group (based from formic acid). And piperidine, is clearly an amine. Linking a formic acid fragment to an amide .. whee .. a formamide or an amide. Unless, of course, you'd like to move it to 1-aza-cyclohexylaldehyde (or whatever name that has). Yes, it is a POV, absolutely. But as you can see from the many, many discussions there are (at least) two POVs .. which do not agree. One POV is to keep it as it is, another is to overcategorise. That means, in simple terms, that there is NO consensus. If you then are on the side of those who want to apply the change, then you need to find that consensus to change. And you have been told so, so any re-categorisations which do not have consensus are, simply, disruptive. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is also called piperidine-1-carbaldehyde, I'm simply using the same logic as you are, I'm just basing it on a different name.
That is not the POV I was talking about - to be more specific, whether or not what I'm doing is overspecifying or not, that is the POV.
P.S. I will be offline for the next 8 hours. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so then lets categorise it both as an amide ánd as an aldehyde (or, to be more specific, a formamide and a carbaldehyde).

Yes, still it is a POV which has no consensus. There are several editors who think that these categorisations are too specific, and that is where you do not have consensus. To put it simple, you do not have consensus to change the categories as you are continuing to do. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hydrochloric acid

I think you have removed some data for the acid here. Materialscientist (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to be more specific? Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I trust you understand your changes in the identifiers. What I question is removal of physical data for the acid, "density" in "Section2 = {{Chembox Properties" and the fields below it, probably hazards too. Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well those properties either refer to solutions of hydrochloric acid which, is no what the chemboxes are for; or they refer to hydrogen chloride. Hydrochloric acid is not miscible, at a certain concentration, it decomposes into hydrogen chloride and water. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a valid justification (well, I might be wrong here, but this would concern other similar acids like HBr, HF, etc. and should be discussed with the project). Hydrochloric acid is a solution by definition. A justification could be that its properties depend on concentration and thus are more appropriately expressed by the table in the body (arguable though). However, some deleted properties are not in that table. I don't see justification for removal of hazards. Please note that such changes to an FA article are usually reverted on the spot with a polite invitation to the talk page :-). Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The hazards belong to hydrogen chloride. According to the description of oxonium chloride, it is not a solution, but a salt that exists only in solution. Oxonium chloride is also the active component in hydrochloric acid, as in hydrochloric acid is a solution of oxonium chloride. In previous dicussions, the content in chemboxes are limited to the pure substance only, except under miscellany fields. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no pure hydrochloric acid. Further, this covers other similar aqueous acid solutions, and thus changes are to be done consistently and are to be discussed with the project first. This is my understanding of the balance between being bold and living in harmony with other editors (those who built those articles, for example). Materialscientist (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oxaziridine edit

Hello,

I don't think that the addition of the chemical info box is consistent with the preexisting article for oxaziridines. The unsubstituted oxaziridine molecule deserves its own page, just as ethylene oxide has a separate page from epoxides. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Formulas in chemboxes

You usually specify elements, e.g. as 

| Na = 1 
| Cl = 1

This often results in weird formulas, e.g ClNa for NaCl. Please preview the result and use 

| Formula = NaCl

when appropriate. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When salts are involved? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

.. when common usage contradicts the formula generated by the template. I've asked Beetstra to check the ordering in the related sub-template (as it puts F second, but Cl, Br and I first no matter the other element), but as I recall, it is difficult to have a fixed ordering rule which would always work. Thus better preview. Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The sub-template uses the Hills ordering system: C, H, other elements follow in alphabetical order. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This means it is unusable (or unpredictable) for nearly any formula containing an inorganic element. I anticipate an answer from Beetstra that it is difficult to program anything better. Materialscientist (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not use the IUPAC stoichiometric system, where the elements are listed inorder of their position in the periodic table, read from bottom to top, left to right, and hydrogen between groups 15 and 16? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This would be much better. I've asked Beetstra if he can code that. Materialscientist (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Allthough it is rather inconvenient for ordinary salts, the above mentioned Hills ordering system is widely used in organic chemistry and in inorganic chemistry too it has advantages when treating more complex compounds. The concequence for more common compounds most often seems overdone, well so be it. Please leave the template as is. T.vanschaik (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert!

You beat me to it! I was just reviewing that author's various similar additions. Thank you again, and cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Molecular mass of sulfur dioxide

Thank you for your improvement of sulfur dioxide. I do not think the mulecular mass of sulfur dioxide is 64.064. According to Atomic Weights of the Elements 2009

O = [15.999 03; 15.999 77]
S = [32.059; 32.076]

Their simple averages are

O = 15.9994
S = 31.0675

therefore

SO2 = 63.0663

I think the values of the website are reliable. How do you think?--Nao1958 (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, upgrade it. I was using:
Atom weights: M. E. Wieser, "Atomic weights of the elements 2005 (IUPAC Technical Report)" Pure Appl. Chem., Vol. 78, No. 11, pp. 2051-2066, 2006
Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused how S = [32.059; 32.076] averages to 31.0675 rather than around 32. All of the stable Isotopes of sulfur are mass 32 or higher and none of the lighter ones are present in any significant amount in the natural abundance. DMacks (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't why there are two values per element given, or how it's related to their calculated averages. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The page is discussing the variability due to different isotopic compositions. Measurements are now so precise that small changes in the "natural abundance" ratio from different samples is detected rather than having uncertainty in the last decimal-places due to measurement imprecision. DMacks (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I made a mistake. Average atomic weight of S is 32.0675. This is larger than 32. Then, SO2 is 64.0663. If the only value S=32.0675 is given, some people think S is from 32.06745 to 32.06755 and other people thinks from 32.0674 to 32.0676. Though I don't know how the value was measured, standard deviation of the measurement may reflect the range of value. --Nao1958 (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Azinphos-methyl

Hi, I noticed you removed the new hazard and protection phrases from Azinphos-methyl. As the calender tells me december 2010 has expired, the new phrases should be active and used. T.vanschaik (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

They are automatically made redundant if the R and S phrases are present, which I updated. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather rigorous, so instead of offering the control between the old and the new and phrases, we just stick to the old ones; thereby, the GHS phrases are the new standard, so why not change the redundancy, and remove the R/S phrases? T.vanschaik (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

R/S Phrases are current and the preffered type in wikipedia. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(if I may intrude): I noticed these edits. Yes, the setting is still that R/S phrases are the 'preferred' type in Wikipedia. But I do agree, that maybe that should change, and we should re-write the {{Chembox Identifiers}} to use P/H-phrases over R/S from now on (but maybe that needs a bit of a discussion. However, PP, removing the P/H-phrases in favour of R/S phrases, or, T.vanschaik, removing the R/S phrases in favour of P/H-phrases maybe should not be done. Just put them both there. Even when we chose to display one over the other, or the other over one, they can still be in the code of the box, for 'historic' reasons, as most people will still be used to the old system, and recognise that (and maybe an intermediate time showing all would be an idea, so people can get 'used' to the new system (showing P/H-phrases above the R/S-phrases). Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
IMO both should be displayed. BTW: This is also the method of choice in de.wikipedia (see article). Instead of referencing a random MSDS, the Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 should be cited. --Leyo 09:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I agree - ideally, both should be displayed. I also think that they should be automatically hidden, both so that the reader may choose which one to display, and to save keep the chembox as small as possible. Beetstra: do you mean {{Chembox Hazards}}?

Displayed both for now, though I think that we may want to the new system, slowly abandoning the old system (but no need to delete the old ones yet, as I said, let people get used to the new ones). I would not hide this important information in standard review, people might want to see immediately what the 'problem' is with this compound (we may not be a reliable source, and it may even be stupidnot the smartest action, but I know that ambulances in some places first go to Wikipedia (as it is a quick, pretty complete, and generally actually quite reliable resource of the information and easier to find than other sources) .. but I sure hope they don't base their final decisions on it .. :-/ .. anyway, for that this is the type of info that you want to see immediately (unlike a IUPAC-name, e.g.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) By the way, Plasmic Physics - yes, my mistake, I meant indeed {{Chembox Hazards}}. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect unit conversions

I noticed in this edit that you converted 1 mmHg to 100 Pa and 142 mg/l to 142 mg dm-1. Are you sure these are both correct?

Yes, 1 mmHg is equivalent to 100 Pa to one significant figure, and one liter is equivalent to one cubic decimeter. Both, the Pascal and the cubic decimeter are used in chemboxes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please take a closer look? When you convert 1 mmHg to 100 Pa, you are changing 1 significant figure into 3 significant figures, and thereby introducing a significant error since 1.00 mmHg = 133 Pa. It would be preferable to keep the same significant figures (1x102 Pa, for example). Or better yet, you could just leave it the way it was, and avoid the opportunity to introduce error altogether. Also, 142 mg/l is density (mass per volume), but 142 mg dm-1 is not density, but rather mass per length. The unit mg/l is a commonly used unit of density, but mg/dm3 is not, so it would be preferable to keep the former units. Again, keeping refraining from unnecessarily altering units would avoid the opportunity to introduce error due to careless mistakes such as confusing mg dm-1 with mg dm-3. 71.185.49.174 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Zeros occurring before a decimal point, with the exception of interveneing integers, is by default counted as insignificant figures unless specified otherwise. A difference of 33 Pa is an uncertainty, not an error. I noticed that the default measuremental uncertainty in this case would be 0.5 mmHg, so inacutuality there are two significant figures. The original should have been correctly presented as 1.0 mmHg, so the best I can do is change it from 100 Pa to 130 Pa. The cubic decimeter is used commonly in the chemboxes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nihilohedral

Is nihilohedral a word you've invented? It has only 49 hits on Google, most or all of which seem to come from Wikipedia.

Ben (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a term used in geometry to describe an object with a lack of faces i.e. a lines (curved or straight). In chemstry, this would cover all triatomic moeities with a 180 degree bond angles, aswell as all diatomic species. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it's obviously not a widely-used word, since there are only a handful of hits online, all of which seem to come from your edits to Wikipedia. Do you have any proof this is a real word used in chemistry? You do have a history of adding controversial and/or extraordinarily rare terms, like "oxazinic acid". --Ben (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. What term do you suppose should be used instead, to describe faceless molecules? The term linear is already used as an adjective template:Chembox Coordination, as in linear digonal or linear monogonal. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do, but that's not what I want to focus on. The normal term in chemistry is linear. You still haven't provided any proof/sources, so I assume you coined the term nihilohedral. Please either confirm that you invented the word or provide your source. If you invented it, remove it from all chemboxes etc. If you have a source, reference it wherever you have used the term nihilohedral. If you have a source for "nihilohedral" but it is insufficiently reliable for Wikipedia, then you must remove all uses of the term here. This is basic stuff: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Ben (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"No" to your question, I was not argueing with your closing statement. I feel there is a need to repeat the remainder of my previous post. Adding to it, I should say that it seems redundant to state "linear" twice in template:chembox MolShape and in template:chembox coordination. The latter gives the number of vertices of the polyhedron and how they located relative to each other and the central locus, i.e. orthogonal, linear, etc. The former gives the number of faces of the polyhedron. An example would be orthogonal hexagonal coordination with an octahedral geometry. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Plasmic Physics, but you do not clearly answer the question of Ben. So, to be clear, did you coin yourself the term nihilohedral: YES or NO ? Please, answer clearly and straightforward to this question. If you did not coin this expression, please, provide a verifiable and reliable reference for the source of this expression. Wikipedia is not a place to advertize personal and self-made theories. See WP policy on original research work, notability and verifiability. Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry Plasmic Physics, I misunderstood you. I see what you mean, but this is not how chemists think about coordination geometry. Our chemboxes need to reflect the way chemists think, talk, and write about molecular and coordination geometry. A chemist would describe (say) molecular BeH2 as a linear molecule, with linear coordination at Be. No-one would ever call it nihilohedral. "Linear digonal" is not normally used because linear coordination implies digonal. "Linear monogonal" and "monogonal" are not used, either, because all 1-coordination is "linear" (two points define a line, those two points being the single ligand and the metal).

Coordination is almost always described in terms of coordination number and coordination geometry, often omitting the former because it is implied by the latter. So you see tables (e.g. in Greenwood & Earnshaw) of all the known coordination numbers and geometries of an element. You might see coordination number 6 can occur as either octahedral or trigonal prismatic geometry. For coordination numbers 0 and 1, there is no name for the "geometry". For CN = 2, it's called linear (L-M-L angle = 180°) or bent (otherwise).

If you want to add something unambiguous about molecular geometry, why not add point groups?

More generally, do not invent words and add them to Wikipedia, as this contravenes WP:OR.

Ben (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not in the OED; nor is nilohedron. The prefix nilo- refers to the River Nile. I presume that you have made this up because there are nil faces. Chris (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

removals

Hi .. I see that you reverted two edits (which may be incorrect ..[5][6]) - it seems there is a conflict in the StdInChI there .. which one is correct?

Note, it would be good if you add a remark to the undo - about why you undo the edit. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For ACPD, the InchI that was removed refered to one specific diastereomer. For 3-carboxy-cis,cis-muconic acid, they were an exact duplicate of the standard ones present. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit in Dioxygenyl hexafluoroplatinate?

--Makecat (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't read the reaction formula correctly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Methyl violet

was messed up over the years. I've tried to clarify the relation between the 2H/6H/10H varieties (thus left a table which is partly redundant), and your contribution to the infobox might help. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Appologies, I have temporarily lost access to internet.
I will have a look at the article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that it should have a chembox at all, since it refers to a class of compounds rather than an individual. If you insist, I can update the chembox to represent Methyl violet 2B only. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
My first priority was to fix the confusion between the names and their classifiers. Nearly every dye has so many names that I don't know how to deal with this. For example, crystal violet (596,000 Google hits) is an ample article on its own, but it is also called methyl violet 10B (29,200 hits). Methyl violet 6B is obscure and was previously mixed up with 2B, thus I don't know what this article should describe. It depends on how much notable information is available on other "methyl violets". Maybe an overview of the "family", with some information on historical naming. Materialscientist (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that degradation shouldn't have sub-headings, and that methyl violet shouldn't focus on any particular compound, except where the most prominent example is used. I think it should include history of discovery and synthesis, evolution of the variety of uses; a comparisson with alternatives, with a discussion on advantages and disadvantages; the chemistry relating to the uses for methyl violets; and miscellany. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hydrogen astatide

PLEASE read the reason your edit was reverted before reverting that reversion. 24.121.37.172 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Forgot I wasn't logged in. Fivexthethird (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PubChem

I realize that PubChem has certain curation problems, but I don't think it should be considered unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. There are links to it from near every chembox, after all. If you find a synonym that you think is dubious for some reason, such as at 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylacetaldehyde, I would recommend just removing it from the chembox and perhaps leaving a note about it on the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to be too rash, thus I leave a {{CN}} up for three months before I remove the uncited name. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Raccoon City dispute

I have made an attempt to communicate with the IP that is constantly re-adding merged content - it would appear that he simply doesn't care about my justifications, and doesn't appear to have ever read the edit summaries. I believe that he is re-adding the discussions by copy-pasting from a text program rather than genuinely reverting - an edit war of that sort occured on other Resident Evil articles after a number of sockpuppets modified an outdated version to include a list of release dates for absolutely every country they could think of. Moving back to the current dispute, I have invited the IP to begin a discussion as to the fate of the article and its talk page several times, though I have seen no response thus far.--OsirisV (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been going on for several months now, by the same user under different IPs. The talk page has been semi-protected at least three times. The IP is engaged in blatant vandalism, proven by their obstinant overturning of the deletion consensus without reason. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Hydrogen astatide

You seem to be in a slow edit war with Fivexthethird about the contents of a field in the chembox. I have for now removed the whole field, and suggest that the two of you, maybe with help of others, figure out a middle way (e.g. on the talkpage) and then let another (uninvolved) editor re-insert the field. Edit warring is not the way forward, especially not such lame ones as about something like this. Here, there is no right or wrong. Please, next time consider to .e.g. leave it at a wrong value, or choose the solution that I now implemented. I should note, that edit wars can get you blocked, even if they are slow and do not pass the bright line of WP:3RR. If you get again in an edit-war over this type of things that may also be your faith, possibly without warning. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hydrofluoric acid / Hydrobromic acid

It may come as a surprise to you, but if you follow the identifiers, and links, and look at the data, then that data is for Hydrofluoric acid and Hydrobromic acid (I agree, some of the data should be presented different, but the rest is REALLY for those compounds; only note, maybe the CSID for Hydrobromic acid is sub-optimal, but then the CSID is pointing back to hydrobromic acid as well). Please be careful. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Same was true for Hydrochloric acid. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are making a mistake, do not rely on the title of the CS page, look at the identifiers to confirm the compound. In fact, never rely on the page title for pages like this, including PubChem. Always double check the identifiers. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Plasmic Physics, on e.g. Hydrobromic acid you removed all the properties, all the identifiers. The melting point is the melting point of hydrobromic acid, the boiling point is that of hydrobromic acid. 255 is the CSID for hydrogen bromide, AND the CSID for hydrobromic acid on CS, 307 is the CSID for hydrogen chloride, AND the CSID for hydrochloric acid .. etc. etc. I am willing to entertain that the InChI for hydrobromic acid is different from hydrogen bromide (please, enlighten me) .. but for the rest you were simply removing a lot of data that was correct. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier this year at the project page using hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid as models. Acid solutions do not a single boiling point, as it is dependent on concentration. Likewise, they don't have unique identifiers like InChIs and SMILES, because they are not discrete compositions. I would encourage to refer back to the logged discussion over hydrohalic acids. If I remember correctly, there was a debate over whether it is appropriate for articles concerning the acid solutions to have chemboxes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a debate, lets read that discussion, if we can find it. And if the outcome of that discussion was clear to removal, then please do point there in the removal, what you mentioned now was certainly not correct.

'Acid solutions do not have a single boiling point, as it is dependent on concentration'. Sure, but that is not what the chembox says, it is not an unknown concentration. InChI's and SMILES, I can see that that is difficult indeed, and maybe they c/should be removed, but the acids do have other identifiers which are/may be unique (as I said, both Hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid have a CSID 307 ...), and the MSDS you removed for sure pointed to the solution, and not to the gaseous compounds.

Ah .. the discussion is here, which did not get to a conclusion. It mentions this removal you did before, where you also removed all the identifiers, whereas some simply DO pertain to the right material (the solution), and where you also removed the boiling and melting points where concentrations were given (obviously, a solution of 20% HCl in water will always have the same boiling point, and always have the same melting point, and always have the same pH - that would not be the case if the concentration would not have been given, then the boiling point, melting point and pH are indeed not reliable. Also there you removed the MSDS, which is for hydrochloric acid - It may be necessary to say that that is for concentrated HCl (or whatever concentration - maybe this is something that needs to be mentioned as a standard in the bottom to make it easier), still, it is for a solution (oh, wait, it says in a remark that it pertains to a 20-22% solution, so we even know what it pertains to). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Chemboxes should not exhibit favouritism beyond STP conditions, thus it isn't right to only focus on one particular concentration. According to who, is the CSID of 307 shared between hydrochloric acid and hydrogen chloride, certainly not CS? Chemboxes are just not designed to be used for such varied situations, it's like using a chembox for steel. Just as a side note, chemboxes have been removed from other articles for more or less the same reason with even less variability. I'll be signing off now, I'll reply tomorrow. (local time) Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Chemboxes were specifically designed to also have compounds which do go beyond STP. We are trying to inform the public here, this is not about the WP:TRUTH, this is about giving information which can be defended against sources, and giving a boiling point for 20-22% HCl is something that is defendable, encyclopedic information. According to your thoughts, we can not have an article on hydrochloric acid, because it can have different concentrations, we should have articles on 1% Hydrochloric acid, 2% Hydrochloric acid ... sometimes we have to make some editorial judgment to improve what we tell the reader, and for these compounds giving boiling points for one or two concentrations (and providing references to full lists, or putting them in a table) is showing more than just leaving all out. We're not writing for chemists only.
Regarding hydrochloric acid vs. hydrogen chloride on ChemSpider - there is only one record, where the two compounds are mixed. And even so if they were not the same on ChemSpider (if there was a record for HCl, and one for a water solution of HCl of undefined concentration, than the former belongs on Hydrogen chloride, and the latter on Hydrochloric acid), but plain removal is certainly not providing any info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, "my thoughts" was concerned with the chembox not the article. These is a different way to represent the little information that does refer to hydrochloric acid, that is more appropriate than a chembox. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The Chembox is for giving a quick overview of a chemical - and therefore it certainly has a place on these pages, there is data there that is applicable to the chemical when presented in a correct way. The Chemboxes are not for black chemicals only, or for white chemicals only, there are MANY chemicals which are shades of grey. And these are just a couple of them. Yes, a full table in the text may be appropriate, but that does not exclude that some key information should be in the chembox. It has to be clear that it is about a certain concentration (or 2-3 of them when appropriate; in these cases), and that should be clearly stated there when that problem exists.
This is yet another one, you were there when we ran into hydrates, you were there when there were ambiguous IUPAC/systematic names, and now this. One goal is to inform the reader, and the chembox is to display some key information - I think that a boiling point of XX% hydrobromic acid is a key part of information which is informative for a reader, it brings the realisation that it is a liquid that can be distilled, that it does not decompose, and that it does not 'separate' in hydrogen bromide and water. It does not need the boiling points of 1, 2, ... 67% .. just one (maybe two or three) typical concentrations. Similar an MSDS, it does not have to be the MSDS of the concentration that you tomorrow need in the lab, but one typical one chosen to show typical problems with that chemical, again, we do not need MSDS-es for 1, 2, ... 67%, one or two typical concentrations. And that goes for all. The databases have generally generically grouped 'hydrobromic acid' without specified concentration into one identifier.
But do you know why we actually have those identifiers there? Why it is so important to have them? Hint: they are not there for us chemists so we can find the data pertaining to that compound (that is just a very, very minor bonus for having the identifiers there, for the very small group of people who need that type of data, and we all know that though that identifier is sometimes a shortcut leading directly to the information we need, often, like here, it is just a small handle on the way to the information you actually need). --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This should issue should be relisted at the Project page. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is what I did: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#acids.2C names and more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Element compounds

Hi, I closed this discussion as no consensus. It was open for a very long time and there wasn't any clear conclusion on a criteria concerning which should be kept and which should be deleted. I do think there would be consensus to delete the ones with very few compounds (e.g., 2 or fewer). There also may be some common desire to delete the ones with far too many compounds (e.g., more than 50 or 60). If you still are interested in having some of these deleted, I would suggest renominating a subset, say starting from the ones with very few links, and go from there. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Scarlet GN

Hi there. Are you aware of WT:Chem#Scarlet GN and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scarlet GN.png? --Leyo 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copper(II) sulfate

Two comments. (i) Here you trimmed the crystal structure, removing references. Also, you removed all the pentahydrate information; why not keeping it? (ii) This page is 210k+ long. You can remove old threads manually or set up autoarchiving (see WP:ARCHIVE). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the process of splitting the article into Copper(II) sulfate and Copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate. I'm looking to recruit assistance. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Good luck. Usually, a new article is created first and the duplicated information is deleted last, not vice versa. References for crystal structure are to be kept as this issue is not trivial (it might take me hours to figure out the common crystal form :-). My gut feeling is that someone like Smokefoot might help after the split, or he would have split it himself already - after glancing through the talk I feel editors are not sure how to split these topics. Materialscientist (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I did create the new article before deleting the duplicated information. How do I reinsert the references? In the previous layout, all the structural data was lumped together in the same entry. Now that they are split, it would be reference overkill to list every structural entry. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I see, sorry. As to structure, it is not that bad to copy a reference in all structural fields, but I usually just place it in the top ("| CrystalStruct =") field and then it is understood that the fields below are sourced to the same reference(s). In practice, a properly done study contains all basic structural information. Materialscientist (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(I was thinking why did I start blaming you for something you haven't done). It is really important to use edit summaries when removing information or introducing non-trivial changes. In my practice, this helps not only other editors, but even myself to locate and understand some of my past actions. Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, creating red links in appropriate circumstances is favorable: Wikipedia:Red link. Your edit summary made me think you thought otherwise. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Uranium hydride

Why? It is a solid, not a radical. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the solid no longer paramagnetic, are there no unpaired electrons in the solid? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It is ferromagnetic at temperatures 180 K and below and paramagnetic above, but we don't show unpaired atomic electrons in the formula of a solid. Those are not dangling on hydrogen atoms but are localized on uranium. Materialscientist (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
We don't show the SMILES or InChI identifiers for solids either. The charge on the ammonium cation is shown in the formula, I never said that the lone electron was not localised on uranium. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Charges on atoms are also sometimes shown for solids (complex minerals) - not as radicals but as Fe3+, etc. - but this is an obsolete habit. The difference with ammonium is that individual UH3· molecules have not been observed, as far as I know. Materialscientist (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure it has been observed, monomers trapped in an argon matrix in the early naughties, maybe as far back as the late nineties. Anyways, it's the IUPAC way of writing out chemical formulae. From my perspective, noting the radical nature of a molecule is no different from noting an overall charge, both convey electronic and magnetic information. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Trapping is interesting. IUPAC is not :). Any solid can be decomposed into molecules or ions (whatever the definitions, the term and symbol 'radical' are not used with d and f element - 'ion' is used instead. The concept of unpaired electron has a different meaning for the non-valence d and f shells), but we specify the equilibrium form at ambient conditions, which is UH3 solid I believe. Am I missing something? Materialscientist (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason that a stable species cannot be both a radical and an ion concurently. What do you mean by a different meaning? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
d and f shells normally don't directly contribute to bonding and thus can contain one to several unpaired electrons without implying any chemical activity (they can have similar energy with the valence shell and thus contribute to bonding, but this contribution is 'accidental'). Surely the concept of radical can be applied to d and f elements, but it brings no benefits, and 'excited state' or 'ion' is used instead. Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "d and f shells normally don't directly contribute to bonding", take scandane and titane as examples, they are the smallest molecules to exhibit sd2 and sd3 hybridisation respectively. Aren't paramagnetic solids beter semiconductors, than diamagnetic solids?
In any case, contribution to chemical activity is not a key reason for this practice. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
sd hybridization results from accidental similarity of the energies of the s and d shells in specific cases; it happens, but contrary to sp hybridization, can not be predicted from simple arguments. Magnetism depends on ordering of spin orientations, it does not require mobility of spins and thus in general is not directly related to conductivity (sure magnetism affects the motion of electrons which became free due to other mechanisms, etc, etc, but those are other phenomena). Coming back to uranium hydride, "radical" is not its equilibrium state at ambient conditions, and thus I'll remove it from the infobox (and add on ferromagnetism ;-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Why else is solid uranium hydride paramagnetic then? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
because of the f electrons of uranium (its configuration is [Rn] 5f3 6d1 7s2). Unpaired d and f electrons normally account for magnetic properties of d, f metals. Here again, the pairing and (chemical, electrical) activity of electrons is very different in the d, f and in the s, p shells. Normally, d and f shells are screened from chemical interactions by the s, p shells. Even if d shell becomes an external shell, it has more possibilities for arranging unpaired electrons than s, p shells. Magnetism can well originate from low-energy, 'inactive' configurations, such as d5, where all 5 spins are unpaired. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, well, both explanations point to a radical nature for solid uranium hydride. Do as you want though. Just note it somewhere by using <!-- -->, so that I wont add it in the future if I forget. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This is worth remembering without <!-- --> :-): 'radical' requires a valence electron; d and f element solids might well have unpaired electrons, which are not valence electrons, and thus are not 'radicals'. Materialscientist (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

CAS numbers

Hi Plasmic Physics, I just wanted to let you know that I add the cascite template to the chembox when I have verified the CAS# directly from the full CAS database (via SciFinder), not from the limited set that CAS makes available publicly at Common Chemistry. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why do you not give correct reference? Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. The reference to CAS is correct. In the template {{cascite}} there is a field for the source of verification. So {{cascite|correct|CAS}} means that the CAS# is correct and has been verified against CAS. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The cascite template is written so that "CAS" is indicates a verification against Common Chemistry. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation#Verification - tagging references for information on how verification templates work. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand what you're getting at now. The way the documentation is written, CAS can't be used to stand for Chemical Abstracts Service.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)We could reprogram the template to take 'CASAbstracts' or something as the ref .. interesting thing, though. Could you guys create lists when verifying CAS against other sources than commonchemistry in the format 'pagename=CASNo' (one per line)? I can then use these for manual verification (maybe I can make CheMoBot pick up the CASNo-verification again when the number goes up). Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see how CAS can be a practicable primary source, generally CAS numbers are sourced from other services, like SciFinder, which is original source that Eddy used. Nonetheless, I will note my sources once such a list is set up. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
SciFinder is a product of the Chemical Abstracts Service which directly accesses the Chemical Abstracts Service's database. There can be no more reliable source for CAS numbers than that. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Dirk, how important is it to distinguish between CAS numbers that are verified against CAS database through CommonChemistry versus CAS numbers that are verified against CAS database through SciFinder? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, even so, you still used SciFinder as the source. On a side note, the logic behind the last sentence doesn't quite hold - as I remember from discussions about systematic name referencing, IUPAC documentation is not a reliable source for IUPAC names. I know, it sounds ridiculous, but that was what was decided. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Distinguising has the same reason, as for distinguishing other refferences. If you verify a statement, you wouldn't give CNN as the source, when it is located with BCC. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
SciFinder is not the source of the information I'm getting. The source is Chemical Abstracts Service. SciFinder is merely the method of accessing that source. Using your analogy, if I get information from CNN.com, I certainly shouldn't report Internet Explorer as the source. -- Ed (Edgar181)
Not massively important to know the source, but we then know that it was thoughtfully looked up somewhere (and that that source was not a supplier catalogue or the commonchemistry site). Also, then it would be possible to categorise articles which are on commonchemistry and which are not, which may be nice for the CAS people to see what is done and what they could add .. for the rest, distinction between commonchemistry or the CAS-service is not really an issue, (but as PP suggests, bit more fair, though not as dramatic as CNN/BBC).
Regarding the list of 'non-commonchemistry-sourced CASNo', please just make a page in your userspace, when I know them, I can then easily source them and get the data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I can put a list in my userspace: User:Edgar181/non-commonchemistry-sourced CASNo. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this

At the moment I am verifying: ChemSpiderID, DrugBank, UNII, ChEMBL, ChEBI, KEGG, StdInChI, StdInChIKey, CASNo

My system works from some massive lists I obtained from people/websites, from direct searches, and .. from user (i.e. 'Beetstra') generated lists. Where known, I am updating the values from these lists (there may be some mistakes in my list, I'd like to hear that as well).

If I can not verify a number (because it is not on any of my lists), I am now a) blanking the value, b) indexing a version with all values that are correct (according to my lists) filled in and all others blank, and c) returning the values that were there. Those values that were there are .. sometimes correct. You both may guess it already .. those need to be put into lists by hand. It would be great if you could help in making lists of the format described above for ChemSpiderID, DrugBank, UNII, ChEMBL, ChEBI, KEGG, CASNo.

CASNo/CAS_number can not be derived from any other identifier, so ALL need to be done by hand (I need a list 'pagename=CASNo'). Similar goes for KEGG (I have InChI<->KEGG, but not StdInChI<->KEGG - so I need a second list 'pagename=KEGG'). If I have a correct ChemSpiderID, I can derive the others (ChemSpiderID -> StdInChI -> UNII/ChEMBL/ChEBI), for as far as they are in my lists. ChEMBL/ChEBI are massive lists, but they seem very incomplete somewhere.

I am doing ChemSpiderID now by hand, filling in the rest as we go, but what is missing still needs to be done .. all help would be appreciated in that. For convenience:

(Those articles have identifiers changed from a verified identifier - a lot of them will be correct, but still need checking properly).

Pretty please?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Small note .. I was working from an incomplete ChEMBL list .. hopefully tomorrow a full list. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there Plasmic Physics! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that it didn't have references (yes, I know it was a stub, but at least one reference is a good idea!) Here's a tip: make use of Reflinks!

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Blue vitriol

I am sorry about your article that I redirected. What was your motivation in creating it? I think Copper(II) sulfate hydrate should probably also be a redirect; with only one source and such little potential for expansion, for now I think all the information on the copper(II) sulfates should probably be in one place. I am awfully glad to see your good contributions in chemistry articles as it is a great love of mine. Keep up the good work, but in future there should be a meaningful talk page consensus to create child articles like this unless there are length considerations, which I did not see in this case. --John (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plasmic_Physics/Archive_3&oldid=1075725017"