User talk:Plasmic Physics/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Thanks

I didn't say anything at the time, as I was sure he'd just rant about it, but that thank you for backing me up over OneMadScientist. You got several days telling off over it, for which I can't help but feel a but guilty. Project Osprey (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's no problem, I just have to make a stand on some things in life. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Inchikey

Hi Plasmic

can you please run your software to get the inchikey and stdinchikey for disulfur dioxide: O=S=S=O, for my new disulfur dioxide infobox! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

MarvinSketch 5.12.2 yields for O=S=S=O and O=[S][S]=O:

• StdInChI=1/O2S2/c1-3-4-2
• StdInChIKey=AXYLJRYHRATPSG-UHFFFAOYNA-N

Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article indicates O=[S][S]=O, not O=S=S=O. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added your information. Human readable bits look feasible. How come you are awake so late? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I guess I'm a night owl. I usually stay up until 1 or 2 AM, and rise again between 9 and 10 AM. That the fun about being extramural. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		For a no nonsense, but helpful and accurate response to a question, among others. Shadowjams (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:Silicon alloys. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my edits, and I have invited you to discuss your concerns. This recent post is taken as a dismissive act towards my goodfaith warning, I will be forced to alert an administrator if your anticooperative behaviour continues. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

When your supposedly reasoned argument consists of "Whether or not it is a significantly important group does not contribute to the argument for or against the creation of a category. " (Category talk:Aluminium-silicon alloys), it is impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with you. What purpose is there to categorization, other than to manage groups, and presumably the important ones first?

Your edits today seem focussed on categorizing alloys as merely "mixtures" and strongly resisting any attempt to do better than this. It's hard to see what function Category:Silicon mixtures even has, being otherwise empty apart from the alloys sub-category, but I recognise that my personal ignorance of any value to it is no proof that there could not be some. However you seem to be taking the opposite line: whenever you didn't invent something yourself or are unaware of it, you assume automatically that there is no such group. You even extend this to repeatedly blanking a descriptive header on a category and have somehow interpreted WP:CAT as dogmatically stating "categories must never be explained". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." --Wikipedia:Categorization

This shows that navigation is the determining factor.

I resisted subclasifying silicon alloys as it would preclude any mixture that is not an alloy, that could consequently not be included in the alloy category. The mixtures category is only empty, because all its contents were categorised into a the alloy subcategory.

Moreover, I did not say that categories must never be explained. The content I removed, was did not contribute what so ever to the clarification of the category subject as would be appropriate. The content I replaced it with fullfilled that role perfectly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI: "Sometimes, a common-sense guess based on the title of the category isn't enough to figure out whether a page should be listed in the category. So, rather than leave the text of a category page empty (containing only parent category declarations), it is helpful – to both readers and editors – to include a description of the category, indicating what pages it contains, how they should be subcategorized, and so on." (WP:CAT#Creating category pages)

Please stop removing such descriptions.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the same text I am refering to, and stand by my closing comment (12:57). Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

To be specific about silicon alloys (and especially the aluminium-silicon series) the literal text "Silicon alloys are alloys that contain silicon" is unhelpful because the aluminium-silicon alloys contain very little silicon. It is minor by composition, major by effect. Most of them contain far more magnesium, copper or other alloying ingredients than they do silicon, yet we still consider these as aluminium-silicon alloys, not the aluminium-copper alloys (there are important aluminium-copper alloys too, but AFAIK these don't overlap with those considered as aluminium-silicon). "Silicon alloys are alloys that contain silicon" is not only trite and self-evident from the category name itself, it's also misleading as to the scope of those that should be included. Plenty of the aluminium alloys contain silicon too, yet aren't thought of as aluminium-silicon. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The description I added was to fullfill your desire to have a clarification, that is why it trite and self-evident. It may improve by the addition of two words, to 'This category lists alloys that contain silicon by intent'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"If an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article. Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list. Even worse, an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful.

In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." --Wikipedia:Overcategorization is also relevant to that category, which is why my comment on its talk page. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not make the statement as self-evident to the same level as 'Silicon alloys are alloys that contain silicon', that is your creation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By your blather about intersection categories, I assume that you don't know anything about aluminium-silicon alloys (which is a shame, as we have a redlink to fill) and instead you're falling back of WP principles as a substitute for content knowledge. That is unlikely to be a particularly sophisticated or knowledgeable approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right, in that I don't know much about Al-Si alloys, but as I said, that is inconsequecial to this discussion. Comprehensive knowledge of the topic is not required, when deciding upon the suitability of categorisation. To know what type of goose I see, has no effect on the veracity of the fact that, in general, birds can fly. It is only useful in determining whether a particular individual can fly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to follow the general guidelines, so as the proponent of the exception, it is your responsibility to justify it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you for or against merger?

You've reverted my removal of merge templates on the articles Acyl halide and Acyl chloride, but why? I removed these templates partly because of what was said in the discussion by you: "Oppose - Acyl halides undergo different reactions strongly depending on the halide, and acyl chloride is the most commonly encountered acyl halide. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)" Are you retracting your statement? ComfyKem (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm retracting my statement. There is a right way and a wrong way to finalise a merger discussion, simply deleting the merger templates, is not how it's done. See WP:Merging#Proposing a merger.

PS My reason for opposing is not because they're not the same, it is that the difference is significant. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've participated in the discussion (a bit), but I'll leave you to deal with these two articles' merger proposal since you know more about the subject than I. If you don't think they should be merged, then close the discussion after a set time period and remove the merge templates instead of having them sit there for years. ComfyKem (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a 'not' the first sentence of my reply above, I really do oppose the merger. I'll close the discussion later tonight, first I have a few errands to run. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Chemical safety

Hello Plasmic, I see you're still trying to win a Darwin Award for your chemical experiments. Before you actually hurt or even kill yourself or someone else, I strongly recommend that you take a course in chemical safety (Chem 120S or equivalent) before performing any further experiments with hazardous chemicals. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Humanities Ref desk

If you know very little about a subject, then it might be better for you to refrain from boldly soaring hypothetical speculations, because that's not what the Ref desk is generally for. Furthermore, when you started regurgitating second-hand Jack Chick and Alexander Hislop, there was pretty much a universal groan among all those better-informed about the subject than you are -- which you might have done well to pay some attention to. Otherwise you risk becoming merely yet another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea of who Jack and Alexander are. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Userpage

Could you take out the "Known friends list" in your userpage? Sorry, but it reminds me of a cabal or even a 14th-century guild.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That list is not intended for malignant purposes. Removing it from my user page will not prevent its existence in some other form, so I'm not aware of what you're trying to achieve. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

sulfur melt

I've looked again at sulfur (it was the first thing that came to my mind before asking the question) and have been unable to find a description of it having a melting point range. The makeup of the melt varies with temperature, with varying amounts of different species of rings and chains, but it appears to be a single phase at any given temperature as far as I can tell. (From Cotton and Wilkinson p.524, it appears that the chains reach a maximum length of 5-8x10^5 atoms, but remain dissolved in the melt.) The properties of the melt do change considerably with temperature, however. I'm not sure that a carbon melt at different temperatures would contain varying amounts of different species of carbon (fullerenes presumably), and would have similar varying properties. Given that the melt is predicted to be sp3 and fullerenes are sp2, maybe not--Wikimedes (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC) BTW, any excuse to revisit sulfur allotropy is a good one for me, so thanks for that.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I like inspiring contemplation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on patent

Hi

I received an alert today on this patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0181162.html . What do you think about the existence of these purported transition metal hydride substances at room temperatures and not too high pressures? If they exist then there should be more for the hydride articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems plausible. However, the patent makes for a tough read. It would take a long time to sift through the whole thing and translate all the content into something more intelligible. Personally, I don't like to use patents to expand articles for these reasons. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hidden comment

Just to let you know, I hid you comment here [1] as the editor concerned is banned and your comment seems confusing without context of the other reply. Feel free to modify the box to unhide your reply or remove future responses from the banned editor or even the extant ones if you desire. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Fluoride

Do you dispute the fact that fluoride ingestion DOES NOTHING to prevent tooth decay? Do you dispute the fact that the FDA HAS NEVER APPROVED a fluoride supplement for the prevention of tooth decay? What exactly is your agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.63.181 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Without credible sources, it appears as POV-pushing, moreover the style of wording is against the Wikipedia MOS. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

One can only wish you and your family get an extra healthy dose of fluoride in your next glass of water, bath/shower, beer. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.63.181 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Funniest thing is that there's legitimate concern that fluoridation can cause Asperger syndrome in infants and children. Wake up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.63.181 (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that indiscriminant water fluoridation is ethically sound. One of my agendas includes to ensure accuracy of information by way of credible sources. It is my responsibility to remove unreferenced opinions, otherwise Wikipedia would be a haven for every crackpot wanting to promote the merits of free-energy machines, and the like. Appearances count, they can substitute for the truth, even if they are false. Unreferenced, contentious statements appear like crackpot ideas... Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. Perhaps you'd like to dig up and cite some of the studies done in Western Europe (Netherlands) in the 60's and 70's that lead to the ending of water fluoridation in those countries and include it in the Wikipedia Fluoride page. You'd be doing us all a favor. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.63.181 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't guarantee I'll find anything I can use, but I'll try. Although from the unsourced claims which I've read, it seems that in those regions, overall fluoride deficiency seems negligible to nonexistent. Moreover, fluoridation involves several different compounds of fluorine, not all containing fluoride ions. Thus I'm not sure if this type of information is appropriate for this particular article, unless it relates directly to the fluoride ion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The strange thing is that France sells fluoridated table salt, but does not practice wide scale water fluoridation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Titanium(IV) hydride may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• compound]] with the [[chemical formula]] {{Chem|[H|3|Ti(μ-H)|3|TiH|2]}} (also written as {{Chem|[Ti|2|H|5|(μ-H)|3}} or {{Chem|Ti|2|H|8}}). It is a colourless gas, and a [[transition metal hydride]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gallane may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ability to form 2:1 [[adduct]]s. Thus, with [[trimethylamine]] both 1:1 and 2:1 adducts are formed (i.e. [[Methyl group|Me]]₃N·GaH₃ and (Me₃N)₂·GaH<sub>3</
• ref>{{Cite journal|title = Molecular structure of trimethylamine–gallane, Me₃N·GaH_3<: ab initio calculations, gas-phase electron diffraction and single-crystal X-ray diffraction

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chromium(II) hydride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Compound

Indium trihydride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Compound

Thallium hydride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Compound

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

IUPAC inorganic naming recommendations and indium trihydride

You have reverted my edits to indium trihydride. You may find it useful to read the IUPAC 2005 inorganic naming recomendations. You can find them here old.iupac.org/publications/books/rbook/Red_Book_2005.pdf. It states the rules for the use of square brackets etc. in formulae. Your reversion also reverted the change stating polymeric InH₃ is an unstable compound. It again reads "insoluble". The "normal" reader would sensibly assume that this compound was solid under standard state conditions, which of course it is not. Please put these issues right. I have not got the time or inclination to get involved in a silly edit war. Regards Axiosaurus (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my reversion in the talk page. Any network solid can only be a solid, there is no 'melting', there is no 'boiling'. Ab initio, indium trihydride would be a solid under STP. For how much time it would persist before decomposing is irrelevant. I could just add 'unstable'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Good. Nice to see the word unstable appear. I love your pedantic approach by the way, it makes me smile. I also think you ought to read the IUPAC guidelines on the naming of inorganic compounds, where the rules for using [] and () and the rules for nesting them in complex formulae are described in some detail. Axiosaurus (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have actually, but the parenthesis relating to polymers are except from the nesting hierarchy. Meaning, it would not be correct to use curly brackets instead. I like being pedantic, that's why I have Asperger's. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Asperger's is an Autism spectrum disorder, thus, I'm hyper-observational, and entropy bothers me to the point of becoming irritable. Expressing pedantic behaviour, in effect, is a sort of mental relaxation therapy. I just happen to have found a creative stage on which to express said behaviour. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to prove the point, I just added an 'n' above to improve my grammar. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I never did have much of an affinity for statistics, but I endulge in a good session of calculus. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

good to see you have a sense of humour! You are quite right the rules allow enclosing marks namely [] around formulae, an occasionally I have seen them used to aid in readability ( that may not be word but do not get upset) or make a subtle point but as the rules say that enclosing marks "may be used" rather than must be used, believe me in this instance it is actually being pedantic to use them. Axiosaurus (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You see, another manifestation is having a difficultly distinguishing between being goaded and innocence. I can't tell whether you are intentionally using bad grammar to disturb me, or whether you simply can't be bothered.

To the reply, let us then set an arbitrarily defined condition for using coordination formula nomenclature. What if, the [] formula and the first also-written-as formula are swapped around for purely main block compounds? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not "goading" and not "can't be bothered" just not hyper-observational like you! Axiosaurus (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The [] usage is not that common, and main group compounds other than say Lewis acid/base complexes rarely if ever have them. Axiosaurus (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it's agreed, I'll make changes to all the relevant articles. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm signing off for the night. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Borane new article.

Have you found any evidence in the literature that this oft quoted planar molecule exists in the gas phase? Andrews paper (Thomas J. Tague Jr., Lester Andrews J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, 116 (11), pp 4970–4976 DOI: 10.1021/ja00090a048) find it as one of a zoo of BH compounds and dihydrogen complexes. Older papers are in doubt according to Andrews paper. Structure determination to prove it really is planar would be nice- this molecule is a favorite in high school VSEPR questions.Axiosaurus (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Tague paper has a note on the symmetry of borane in the third paragraph on page 4975. Try [2] for gaseous borane. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. What about the Kawaguchi paper (Canadian Journal of Physics, 1994, 72(11-12): 925-929, 10.1139/p94-122) which may do the trick- however I would need to make a special trip in to university to read it and that won't happen any time soon.

Binary compounds of hydrogen

Good progress on the binary compounds of hydrogen references by the way. I find this an interesting area. Eventually in the article, but please not in the same table as these molecular species, the well known t. metal, lanthanide and actinide "hydrides", what you like to refer to as alloys (adding metallic hydrogen to molten titanium would be a sight worth seeing) should be mentioned too. The interesting point for me is that in the production of these phases via interaction of metal with dihydrogen, the H-H bond is broken with H atoms appearing within the bulk metal. The bulk metal lattice structure may change with increasing H concentration (Hӓgg was wrong about interstitials, although it was a good try) posing some intersting questions about the natue of the bonding - such as where exactly do the H electrons go and how does that affect physical properties. Anyway once the molecular metal hydrides are put to bed we can see how the aricle can be further improved. Axiosaurus (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing about gas-in-metal alloys, is that gas can adsorb, diffuse, and consequentially be absorbed. Thus molten titanium is not required. I've done quite a bit of article surfing on those types of alloys. There are at least two phases of scandium hydride alloy (1:3). In the low pressure phases hydrogen remains atomic with its electron delocalised. In the high pressure phase, the solubility of atomic hydrogen decreases, resulting in its precipitation as molecular dihydrogen trapped within the lattice. This allows for an increase in density. The alloy is now a ternary mixture (Sc:H:H₂). It should be noted, that the delocalization of the hydrogen electrons are not as strong as in metals, but is sufficient to cause the alloys to have metallic character, as opposed to ceramic character. The metallic character appears to be most evident for non-stoichiometric ratios. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that these are handled under hydrides instead of BCoH. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem of that suggestion is that many reputable standard chemistry texts treat these "alloys" as "compounds" - leaving them out woud fly in the face of that. Axiosaurus (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that could be addressed by noting that until the start of the 21st century, interstitial hydrides were considered as true compounds, but are now considered to be more accurately described as hydrogen alloys. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So, even though those textbooks were right in their time, they are today considered outdated. In science, theories come and theories go as better ones replace them. Once, it was thought that methane forms a non-negligible component of Mars' atmosphere, until recent evidence suggested otherwise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

HMM! I hear you but I don't agree, we are not rewriting science text books in Wikipedia if anything we are reporting them. Axiosaurus (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should rewrite them, only that we should acknowledge the discrepancy and continue with the modern view. There are plenty of references from both the 20th and 21st centuries to alloys, but more so in the 21st they are even found in journals dedicated to alloys. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking that some of this use of the term "alloy" for this is original research by Plasmic Physics. When I check before only Wikipedia and its mirrors were calling these alloys. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hydrolysis of borane

I came across this last thing - (I'm off on holiday for 3 weeks) - DOI: 10.1021/ja01101a061 a 1952 kinetic study of gas phase hydrolysis of diborane. There may be newer references that cite this. Looks interesting - supports the hydrolysis via the dissociation of diborane into BH₃. Axiosaurus (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that reference Axiosaurus, I am using it for an article on boronate. (Plasmic Physics I hope you don't mind me using your talk page). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyclo-octasulfur

Please read the IUPAC guidelines on INORGANIC nomenclature the preferred name is cyclo-octasulfur. Playing with IUPAC naming conventions doesn't actually improve articles. I wish you would spend your talents on improving articles by say adding references. The article on cyclo-octasulfur is an example of an article that is badly written and poorly referenced. Axiosaurus (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read it, probably more so than you, which is why I know the octathiocane is a credible name. There is a chembox field for the preferred IUPAC name, opposed to the systematic name. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh by the way. Beryllane is a made up name, I am sure it will be in the next IUPAC recommendations, I thought you would appreciate the joke! It is unreferenced after all! Axiosaurus (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you comparing using a made up name, with adding "speculative chemistry"? That's not a reasonable comparison, they are too dissimilar instances. Firstly, 'beryllane' is seeming pulled out of thin air. While the "speculative chemistry" is based on existing chemical principles for metal hydrides, electrophiles, and beryllium general chemistry. Also note that not everything requires a citation in Wikipedia. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right - not everything requires a reference- Speculative chemistry- firstly requires identification within the article - basically saying this is speculation, preferably speculation by an acknowledged expert reported by the editor. Under no circumstances can speculation be misrepresented as fact. Also any speculation can be challenged. - I will continue to do that. Axiosaurus (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ammonia borane - IUPAC name

Hve you seen this? I think the better IUPAC name would be a coordination name with boron as the central atom, seeing as it is the lewis acid, which I would make amminetrihydridoboron, what do you think?Axiosaurus (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It follows the correct nomenclature. However, the compositional IUPAC nomenclature system also yields ammonia—borane (1/1). Read the usage summary concenrning this naming style at IR-5.6. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent Axiosaurus (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering, would the name μ-bromanol-κBr-dioxygen accurately describe the bonding and structure in bromic acid? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ummm. Could be! I hate this convention it takes too long to decipher them - they remind me of coded messages we sent as kids. Personally I always go for the simplest form and as this a straightforward molecule, something along the lines of hydroxidodioxidobromine is much easier to disentangle. The μ notation for such simple molecules seems like overkill and potentially misleading. For example IUPAC give the example of μ-chlorido-dioxygen for ClO2 which could mislead the naive - as it might suggest that dioxygen was still present. Same goes for the bromic acid name. I think that a useful addition would be some indication of geometry, in the case of bromic acid trigonal pyramidal. But I have zero influence on IUPAC. Axiosaurus (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Iron(II) hydride

Hi, you added a whole section to Iron(II) hydride on Amphotericity but where did you get this information from? I need to have references for this info! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Binary compounds of hydrogen

Whats going on? Why is the limiting solubility of H been entered? ( iam presuming that is what they are) The entries in this table are supposed to be stable (potentially non-stoichiometric) hydrides often called compounds or alloys. Is this a mistake?? Axiosaurus (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you define stable? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just seen your most recent edits. I despair. I had hoped that you were a reasonable editor of wikipedia.Axiosaurus (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm serious, virtually all hydrogen alloys decompose when left to their own devices. There is a reason why I overwrote the original table as written by V8. It was confused, mixing apples with oranges, and just plain wrong in some places, and a patchwork of incoherencies. I decided to do away with alloys altogether, and make the table purely about compounds. When V8 restored the table, it contributed nothing except an arbitrarily chosen list of alloys, and a set of duplicate information already given by the existing table. So, now I'm stuck sorting through that mess of a table trying to convert it to a table dedicated to the alloys. Since V8 is so determined to have it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You changed this table without discussion. You could see a discussion was taking place you chose not to enter into it. Your changes are unreferenced. The table is described as stable binary hydrides, the article is about binary compounds. I know you have a POV about alloys, and have changed many hydride articles to reflect this. I am looking at these now. Axiosaurus (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The original table was also unreferenced, so I'm on equal footing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Putting these interstitial solution alloys into the table is strange. These can be called alloys, and involve random occupancy of T or O sites, and the general concensus is that hey are not compounds. Removing the t metal hydrides quoted runs against the majority of external sources. These are not alloys they are stoichiometric or non-stoichiometric compounds. I know that some authors loosely call all hydrides alloys but the general concensus is that where the lattice changes on absorption the limiting phase composition is a compound. A non stoichiometric compound is still a compound. I would advise you to read a little more widely on this topic. You will find a number of views in Inorganic Structural Chemistry, By Ulrich Müller; Electrons In Metals And Alloys, By J. A. Alonso, N. H. March; The Metal-Hydrogen System: Basic Bulk Properties, By Yuh Fukai; Hydrogen Storage Technology: Materials and Applications, edited by Lennie Klebanoff as well as standard text books such as Chemisry of the Elements by Greenwood and Earnshaw; inorganic chemstry by Hollemann and Wiberg; Structural inorganic chemistry, by Wells. There are lots of sources out there. Axiosaurus (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Removing which TM hydrides? You are aware that many alloys pass through several phases with increasing hydrogen content? Futermore, it makes no sense to arbitrarily choose one limiting phase composition over another for the same alloy. And why do you suppose I don't know what I'm talking about? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Titanium hydride has three limiting phase compositions at STP conditions: TiH
_~0.009, TiH
_~1.4, TiH
_~1.7 Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you have read up on this but are ignoring a lot of sources. This is why I pointed these texts out. You call phases alloys without acknowledging that many chemists and materials scientists would call them compounds. Lets take an example of one of your alloy edits, UH3. There is an overwhelming body of opinion that this is a compound. Your edit was unreferenced and genuine information on UH3 was removed. this article fortunately is not that important. Axiosaurus (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that its mentioned on one of the multitude hydride articles, that the alloys are informally/traditionally called 'metallic compounds' or 'interstitial compounds' or something of the sort. I changed UH
₃ when I was still in my early days of studying metal-hydrogen systems. I need to revisit that particular article, and make sure that I've got covering the right topic. An example, I once mistakenly believed titanium(II) hydride to be the same as titanium hydride, only later did I find out of that hydrogen can form an alloying element, and that such systems are distinct from true compounds. Uranium hydride, as an alloy of varying proportions does certainly exist; it may well be true that the compound also exists that has the exact same empirical formula (UH
₃). Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you say informally/traditionally called whereas there is a large body of opinion that would say "properly called". Calling them alloys looks to me like a shorthand adopted by hydrogen storage researchers who aren't too worried by the structure just the storage capabiliy and absorption/desorption characteristics. Funnily enough when they are talking about hydrogen absorbed by alloys I've only seen them called hydrides presumably to avoid confusion. (Please note I don't like the idea of non-stoichiometric compounds- but I have had to learn to put up with them.) Axiosaurus (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this use of the term alloy last year, and hardly anyone uses it for hydrides. For the hydrides with a large content of hydrogen they were called hydrides and not alloys by over 95% of authors. For specific examples of use I found that only Wikipedia and its mirrors were using the term such as "iron hydrogen alloy" all thanks to the original idea of Plasmic Physics. Where there is a minute amount in solution and the crystal structure is the same as the pure metal, then I would accept the term alloy, but that is not applicable to the binary hydrides article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That funny, because every source I find that is concerned with hydrogen absorption/solubility, and/or phase diagrams calls them alloys. The sources are even published in metallurgical journals. Is me calling them honestly the problem? You've twisted this discussion all the way from questioning my amendments to the first table in Binary compounds of hydrogen, into attacking my credibility. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain your decision to hat the conversation where you did. --Onorem (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Check revised reason in Hat. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've checked. Please explain again. --Onorem (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm trolling by asking for answers that have absolutely nothing to do with the question to be hatted? Why are my responses hatted while theirs are not? --Onorem (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired. Could you at least tell me whether you'll explain yourself or not? --Onorem (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You made the first comment critical of other editors' posts. This combined with the use of sarcasm, has the sole purpose of provoking others. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• And I don't think you understood my point about political correctness. I know what you mean by it, and it's bogus; I note also that the point about grammar completely passed you by. Now, that you called Onorem's contribution "trolling" is simply uncivil, and doing so in a hatnote is plain rude. That you then ran off to ANI to demand a block is--well, I don't want to call a spade a spade, so I'll just stick with uncool, uncollegial, unproductive, and a total waste of time. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Onorem, if you're still watching this--for the record, you kind of acted like a jerk (sorry, in a jerkish manner) there as well. But you let it go after a while, and that's alright. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You say that it is bogus, then why would I call 'trolling' anything else? That discussion was hardly the place and time to make a stand on grammar. What makes calling a contribution 'trolling' uncivil? Is then calling a poor man's condition 'poor' uncivil also? If you call requesting assistance from a third party with personal attacks, 'uncool', then I would gladly accept the label. I would love to have the time and commitment to protect others and myself more often. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered that the designation "trolling" is a matter of interpretation? That Onorem may well have considered the off-topic business of discussing wicked witches to be trolling? Or, to take another tack, why run to ANI immediately? Why couldn't a templated NPA warning on their talk page, or (better yet) a handwritten note, have sufficed? Drmies (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That may well be described as trolling, not a rare thing on the reference desks, but it was of a harmless/non-aggravating nature, and Onorem escalated the discussion into a form of trolling with the opposite nature. It appears that the user has thrown caution to the wind with blatant PAs, hence, a warning or note seems superfluously bureaucratic. Moreover, normally, one would be foolish to not expect repercussions from engaging with such behaviour. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Onorem was trolling. BB's habit of making jokes rather than answering questions is a common source of complaints and to express frustration with it either in the hope it will stop or simply as an outlet of the frustration is hardly surprising or uncommon. And there's no way you can rule out either of these as the motivation. One of these motivations is obviously a lot less acceptable than the other although but neither is trolling. This doesn't mean Onorem handled the situation well either way. Simply that accusing them of trolling suggests at a minimum a lack of understanding either of your fellow contributors or of what trolling is, or both. Note that trolling is an accusation of bad faith so making such an accusation is a serious thing. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I for one enjoy BB's jokes, as long as they are I good taste. Actually, it seem to have been Meides's joke this time. I also know full well what trolling is - accidental or not, Onorem added fuel to the fire he started, and that is why it was hatted. Oh, I haven't mentioned yet, Onorem asked for the reason why I hatted it, despite it being obvious, and that is why I added it to the hat reason. He wanted to cause a spectacle instead of accepting it quietly, and I obliged. Yes, I'm aware that it is an accusation of bad-faith, and I stand by it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, it now seems to me from your own admission, that the only one acting in bad faith was you. I therefore had no desire to continue this discussion as frankly I've wasted enough time on the RD with people like you. P.S. I see our article now includes 'accidental trolls', this is an interesting thing and may be valid in a general sense but not what it's generally taken to mean when you accuse someone of trolling on wikipedia. P.P.S. I only read the discussion after the fact, but it's not obvious to me either why you hatted Onorem's response while leaving the off topic jokes. I doubt I'm the only one (there have been enough discussions recently on WT:RD to demonstrate this), so your claim it's obvious would not seem to be true. Considering few seem to agree with your rationale, it would seem to be double so. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You did read the remainder of that sentence? That even though it may have started accidentally, it developed into an intentional form. I didn't hat the jokes, because I have a sense of humour, and I'm not a by the-book user. I hatted Onorem's response because, besides being non-contributing to the answer of the OP's question, it was a source of aggravation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sentence you're referring to. But in any case, whether the jokes started intentionally or not seems to be besides the point. At most it's a reason to leave the "accidental" jokes but not the intentional ones. (Or are you referring to the back and forth between BB and Onerem? I'm not really sure.)

In any case, the jokes did not contribute to answering the OP's question and many have found offtopic jokes to be more aggrevating than the other person telling them to stop.

Personally I don't find either that bad, the follow up discussion along with the FU edit summary were in hattable territory, but BB is really the one who pushed in to that (hardly uncommon on BB's part), not Onorem. And so it would have been far better to simply hat BB's response and all that followed if you didn't want to hat the jokes rather than starting the hat at the resonable even if not totally polite request to stop the jokes. And with a simple neutral message like 'take it to the talk page' or similar.

A sense of humour has nothing to do with it. Many people have a sense of humour. Some even welcome jokes at a funeral. But if someone starts tell jokes at a funeral where it's clearly unwelcome, someone who tells them to stop or kicks them out does not automatically lack a sense of humour. Similarly while I find some of BB jokes funny (some of them are frankly lame), my personal opinion of the quality of the joke makes little difference in to my recognition of why people find such material frustrating, or my opinion of how to handle it. I don't think you we're trying to suggest because you find the jokes funny, they're okay but if you didn't find them funny they're not, but if you were, that's even worse.

Similarly, there's no general agreement on how to handle jokes on wikipedia, some people are very tolerant, some people want none, personally I'm somewhat in between. But whereever you stand, it's not hard to see why it's problematic when you start to hat a request for people to stop joking, particularly when it's directed at BB who has a history of problems in that area, and μηδείς's who's inconsistency in how they hat the tiniest 'infractions' only to do much worse stuff themselves is legendary, but leave the jokes which came when the question had only been partly answered.

As I said before, I'm tired of this discussion as you seem to be by your own admission, the only person in this discussion who was clearly acting in bad faith ('He wanted to cause a spectacle instead of accepting it quietly, and I obliged') so I see no reason to continue to engage. I only really checked it in case I misunderstood what you're saying (although I did reread several times), but it doesn't seem I have. If I have misunderstood you in some important way, feel free to ping me, otherwise I won't be following up.

Your followups have further demonstrated that your behaviour here seems to be the most problematic. More so than Onorem, BB or heck even μηδείς. Rather than accepting that different people, regardless of their sense of humour, have different views on whether the RD is the time and place for humour, you've made the blantantly offensive suggestion that anyone who doesn't think the jokes are wanted lacks a sense of humour. Your further implication that anyone who thinks if you're going to start to hat stuff, you have to seriously consider what you're hatting, why and how you explain your hat is 'by the book' (as the talk pages or heck your short visit to ANI shows, there's no 'book') is just icing on the cake really.

P.S. I just noticed even BB acknowledged the legitimacy of just closing (well deleting) the whole thing and give μηδείς history, they would have been laughed at if they tried to complain about any hatting. So there's even less reason why it was so important for you to hat precisely where you did, and than fail to politely explain when challenged. The more I look at this, the more I see it looks to be you that made this minor kerfuffle in to an unfortunate mess apparently for bad faith reasons and likely incorrect assumptions.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I referred to the sentence "I also know full well what trolling is - accidental or not, Onorem added fuel to the fire he started, and that is why it was hatted."

Onorem practically asked for the reply by BB regarding where to stick it, by continually criticising his sense of humour. I guess you didn't see Onorem's continuation of his razzing, which he also subsequently removed?

There is no sensible justification for asking other users to "take it to their talk pages" regarding this matter, other than personal preference. It is in itself an overreaction.

Never did I admit that I acted in bad faith. Bad faith by definition, requires deception, and I acted in a honest and truthful way. Onorem wanted to know why I was hatting the discussion, and it is quite obvious that it is because he was provoking BB. I was not going to get into a pointless discussion about why I hatted it. Ordinarily, I wouldn't care about an one off criticism such as Onorem's first post. However, it started a whole private scuffle between the two that was wholly unrelated to the question. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

chloroauric acid

You’ve been busy at chloroauric acid. Some helpful suggestions are:- Cotton and Wilkinson 6th edition say the commercial form is oxonium tetrachloridoaurate trihydrate (which others would call the tetrahydrate.( which contradicts Wiberhg and Hollemann!) There is a Xtal structure JACS 1969 of the “tetrahydrate” showing it to contain the H₅O₂⁺ ion. (JACS 1969, 91, 3). My read of suppliers web sites and the confusion in "authoritative sources" suggests to me that the stuff sold is a mixture. The only fully characterised compound seems to be the "tetrahydrate"

Wang, Shu, et al. "Influence of speciation of aqueous HAuCl₄ on the synthesis, structure, and property of Au colloids." The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 113.16 (2009): 6505-6510 gives a comprehensive on the Au(III) species present at different pH. May help in the aqueous section and effect of base. This backs up a lot of older raman studies of solutions.

The statement about Au(OH)₃ being produced after outgassing of HCl really needs a reference It looks strange to me, HCl is a strong acid the amount of HCl gas is negligible so outgassing would be slow.

Au(I)L₂ complexes are quite temperamental and decompose giving metal, Au(I) is a soft acid so the dichlorido complex is likely to be quite unstable, but I have seen a statement that excess Cl^- can stabilise the complex, again a reference is needed. In solution you can't tell what aggregation of H₂O and H⁺ is occuring so I would avoid saying it is specifically oxonium present. The protic solute links to protic solvent by the way, and why not just say HAuCl₄ is a strong acid. Happy editing! Axiosaurus (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Chem infoboxes

Hi

can you point me to the discussion and/or decision on the topic ban to which you referred? [3] Andrewa (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

I've commented on the WikiProject talk page [4] asking for the subject to be dropped from the discussion there. But I'm happy to discuss it with you (or others) if it helps.

I'm very impressed by your responses overall. We are on the same wavelength on most things. Hang in there!

Some cautions. I expect you've already read WP:POINT, but always keep it in mind, things can escalate surprisingly quickly as you have seen. It's an exception to being bold, and it's wise to follow WP:POINT instead whenever they conflict. And continue to stick strictly to the topic ban, both in letter and in spirit. We may I hope even reverse it in time, but there is much work to be done before that. I don't think there's any need to clarify it. We must (both) respect it. It was not a perfect discussion or decision, but nor was it the worst I have seen by a very, very, VERY long way. We move on.

Which you have done. Again, hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you please help me to eventually lift the ban? I need to find a reasonable solution. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like very much to do that, but I can make no promises.

The easiest way to get a ban lifted is to get consensus that the contributor has acknowledged the relevant mistake(s) and that it won't happen again, and so the ban has fulfilled its purpose and is now counterproductive. This is the most pragmatic solution, but obviously grates if the ban was unjust in the first place.

Another way is to overturn the ban, that is to get consensus that it wasn't a good idea in the first place. This obviously has a ring of justice eventually done, and I think it's what you'd like, but it's not to be taken lightly. It will take longer, both because we need to wait longer before even trying, and because even after we start it's likely to be a far longer discussion. And I do point out that it's a far more moderate ban than was seriously proposed at one point, and which I suspect you were lucky to avoid (rightly or wrongly).

And there is a middle course, which I call the no fault solution. This makes no comment on the rights or wrong of the ban but just says, well either way, it's not achieving anything now. That's sometimes easier than an explicit overturning, but not always. Many people either don't like or don't understand the sophistry involved, so it can actually be harder and take longer than overturning the ban.

Those are the practicalities (they don't completely match the policies but that's the way I see them). I believe myself that the quicker we can lift the ban the better. But as I said, I make no promises. The ban discussion was quite involved, and quite a few feathers were ruffled.

How can you help me? Are there things you did or said that led to the ban and which you would not do or say now? Andrewa (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the "no fault solution" would serve to equip those in opposition with a counter argument. Therefore, all things considered, I would like to take the former course of action, that is overturning the ban.

There are no things that immediately come to mind, in regards to what I may have done or said. My main view it is unreasonable to expect me to discuss every single edit I make. This is why I need a set of rules that allows me to determine which course of action to take on a case by case basis for each particular chembox. Thus, I cannot be blamed for any wrong doing. Yes, they may disagree with a particular edit (as is their perogative), and have me make an alteration or reversion, but I cannot be blamed for crossing some sort of line. As long as there are mines in the minefield, I stand the chance of stepping on one, that much is obvious.

I really appreciate your contribution. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see no chance of overturning the ban in the immediate future, and I'm even a bit doubtful that we will ever manage that. It might be modified, but it's already fairly finely scoped. For now we will just have to bide our time I think. I know that's not the preferred solution, but I can't see a better one right now. Andrewa (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That is fine by me, as you can see, I have patience; and as long as you have a plan. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I yet have a plan. But I have some ideas. They focus on teamwork. The discussion on the definition of an alkene (where this all started for me) is improving I think. I'm no longer being told (however nicely, mostly) trust us, we're the chemists, so do it our way or go away. I think there is a growing recognition that consistency and verifiability have both been lacking, and that just maybe I might have something to contribute to fixing these things.

Let me try another tack, following that line of thought. The ban discussion and decision was not perfect, but it has some merits. To lift the ban, we need to satisfy the members of the WikiProject that you can and will be an asset, and that you'll be more of an asset unbanned than banned.

You're a hard worker and conscientious about detail. You would be a very valuable member of the WPCHEM team. I think it's fair to say that you're not considered that presently. But a little while ago I was being told, mostly but not always politely, to get lost, too.

If they can change their mind about me (which I'm not sure they've quite done yet but there's progress) then maybe about you too. And that's a good solution.

I haven't looked at your contributions lately. You need to be making solid and uncontroversial contributions to chemistry articles, while sticking religiously and conservatively to both the letter and spirit of the ban.

Or alternatively, jump to another topic area entirely, and have fun building up a good edit history there. Are you by any chance a drummer? WikiProject Percussion is always looking for editors... but we're not the least controversial project to say the least, and drum kit is one of the most frequently vandalised articles still unprotected. I guess any area has problems from time to time.

I say again, hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive analysis of the situation, and I totally agree. I have indeed stuck religiously to the ban, only reverting vandalism, incorrect changes, and such. It's really a shame that I don't have other interests. I'm actually a hobby chemist with my own makeshift laboratory, in which I like to dabble. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)