User talk:Rifleman 82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rifleman 82 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in May.

Older discussions archived at

Contents

[edit] WP:SUP

Thanks, I had not seen this site, which has useful advice. We're pretty careful though and I do not emphasize WE-formatting rules much. I think we added 50-60 articles in 2008.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also. I haven't ever assigned WP work to students, but I often refer in talks to those who do. I may also assign it at some point in the future. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prof Hamilton

Actually, it was my girlfriend's article, the teacher was very misguiding, I wrote alot more for another wiki (ED :-D), but i wikied up alot of other peoples articles (essays) and I told them that they would be deleted or merged. Professor Hamilton's idea, although thoughtful, was very ill conceived as he is not familiar with the MoS. I am not in the class or else I would have chomping at the bit as he was handing out his suggested topics, which were mostly news article, not encyclopedic material. Tekjester (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

There has been an allegation of misusing rollback features against me, and my rollback right was retracted. I have provided a clarfication here. Please, take a look. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified my position a bit more. Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at WT:RFA

"Actually, it's possible to change one's vote by striking it and revoting/commenting". The commentators understand that. ;) They're referring to people they supported and then saw their admin actions and had "supporter's remorse". Enigma message 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. Thanks. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the class

Should we be listed which articles have been AfD'd/speedied/redirected? I was shying away from that, since it just seemed awfully depressing. Thoughts? --Bfigura (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should. I doubt we'll catch everything though, since more than one admin handled the closings. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
We can figure out which ones have been through AfD, if that's what you mean. I have sort of a record in my contributions. Enigma message 05:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is cake. Redirected we know. Speedied vs. PRODd we can also tell from the page's log. I could tell you which ones went to AfD. Enigma message 05:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflictx2) Would it be a tad cruel to create a table listing original article title, uploader, new article title, fate - redirected, speedied, afd'ed, kept? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Could be considered cruel, I guess, but I think it would be helpful to observers and to the students themselves. Enigma message 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably. Just so long as we don't throw a N next to every deleted article, I don't think it's excessively mean. --Bfigura (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI Discussion

Hi Rifleman82. Per this conversation about User:Aditya Kabir I have restored the rollback tool. I noted that you explicitly stated that you were not adverse to this, if the editor demonstrated better understanding of the tool. I believe they have done this. I thought I'd better pop by out of courtesy to advise you, and hope that you are okay with my actions. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Wasn't sure what time you were likely to be back online, so I went ahead and gave him the tool back. Hopefully I've made a good decision, and I thank you for being flexible here. Cheers! Pedro :  Chat  10:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries

Your early close of this AFD seems inappropriate for several reasons including:

1. there is too much heat and emotion about these student articles currently which is distorting comment.

2. my Keep opinion was substantial, being backed by policy and a citation and so there was not unanimity.

To save us the aggravation of DRV please can you either usefy this article so that I may recreate it under a better title. Otherwise, please reverse your action. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize. In retrospect, I believe I was hasty in closing this AFD. I'll reopen it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this prompt response. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:WP:RFPP

Hey I just noticed you protected User:Soxred93/sig. I have unprotected the page per Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion_of_templates. These types of pages are not to be used to transclude one's signature, and thus the page shouldn't be protected or used at all. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benzamil

No worries :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of comment

Hi, can you please remove a threating comment from my talk page issued by an uncivil user Editorofthewiki for a silly reason. I don't want to continue discussion with him, but whenever I tried to remove the message, he edit-warred with me. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is at WP:AN/I. Concensus so far has been that it is actually Otelemur at fault in this dispute. I simply love how he calls me a troll in his talk page history and at the page linked above. [sarcastic] I am trying to remain as civil as possible in such situations but Otelemur's canvassing, edit warring, and misuse of his rollback is getting on my nerves. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not misused rollback. I only used it to revert this user in my talk page. Misuse comes if I use it in articles. And I now reverting his comments from my talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And also this user's behaviour is nothing but trolling. Please see his comments on my talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on AN/I, keep it there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Healthcare in Taiwan

I've accidentally edit conflicted you, and I think some of the information you inserted has gone. Sorry about that. D.M.N. (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks better. In any case, it's better than what it was before! D.M.N. (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Gas Price Crisis

I think we've both been following this class's problems--I suggest that the snow close was not a good idea, because this is a matter where we wantto show there was every consideration--and one responsible editor had argued for a merge, and so will I. consider reverting it, please. DGG (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were not able to comment at that AFD prior to closure. At that point, the comments were overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. The article as it stood, if kept, would have to be ripped apart and put back together. Among others its title would have to be changed (MOS capitalization, ill-defined "recent"). The many other problems listed at AFD would also have to be fixed. In the end, it would likely be a content fork of some of the existing articles already.
I do respect your opinion. However, AFD is clogged already, and I am reluctant to reopen the discussion on a relatively cut-and-dried issue. If there are other editors who think that the AFD has not run its full course (and I don't mean reopening the discussion for 25 more delete !votes), do ask them to drop a note here and I will reconsider. At the moment, if you do feel that the article should be re-opened to merge content into relevant articles, I would prefer to recreate the article as a subpage of WP:Global Economics. What do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think for the reasons given it should not have been snowed. These deletions are being watched from outside, and the full procedure should be followed. At one point I did all current deletions the first day, now I do every other day--and so do most people. The deletion policy says almost everything should run its full time. As for me, I have snow closed a few times, but I would certainly reopen after a single objection from a regular contributor. At this point I am discussing the procedure, rather than the article. This is not the place for a multi-party argument, so I intend taking it to deletion review if you will not reopen, and that will be even more of a nuisance for me and everyone. DGG (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I mentioned on your talk, I said I wasn't and won't be pigheaded about it. Since you feel strongly about it, I'll reopen it and let it run its course. Hope this helps. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple copyvio/COI edits

Hi, during my recent patrols, I encountered this user engaging in troll/sockpuppet-like behaviour on many of our SG-related articles despite repeated warnings given. Of much amusement, u may be interested to note this ego-centric user multiple BS claims & the high ratings he gave to those articles he created earlier. As such, I wld appreciate if u could check & take appropriate measures if necessary, so that the hard work of fellow SGpedians & the integrity of Wikipedia are not jeopardised further. Thank u. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While I find it silly to list all his contributions like that (it's hard to keep track when you have a few thousand?), he's free to do so. If you disagree with the rating he has assigned, you can change it, as can anyone else.
I find it more amusing rather than disagreeing on his self rating instead. Anyway, experienced editors, esp the more vocal ones will disagreed & make the changes subsequently. The same goes to all my previous writeups to date, which I do not self rate them at all, but would let other folks to decide or trash it out like this previous example. Kindly note that at times, certain acts may be allowed or even legally right, but on moral grounds, it's questionable like in this case, to claim credit when it's not, esp mutiple misleading ones without any good conscience or remorse. Likewise in your profession, I dun think u would like if someone (including your superiors or seniors) claim publicly in a industry-wide presentation or reputable academic journal that the painstaking research u had done exclusively, was their very own work & enjoy the spotlight & accolades that follows. As in the Law if Karma, it's a matter of time that the truth will be discovered & therefore to bear the consequences of one's actions in one way or another then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Each editor's contribution history is open for all to inspect. Like I said previously, it's dumb to list all your edits. And, it's even dumber to argue about them. What do you hope to achieve by threatening him to, among other things, have him blocked? You might find a sympathetic admin to block him on these grounds, I don't see how false or misleading claims of having edited a certain article will meet the criteria in WP:BLOCK. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Rifleman, do look carefully at the context of my note, my first msg & subsequent replies on your talkpage earlier. Did I mentioned to u in anyway to take any SPECIFIC course of action on the user earlier? I believe u will exercise due diligence as ultimately it's your call to make on any appropriate follow-up actions. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sort of sockpuppetry he is supposed to be engaged in. If you clarify, I can look into it.
Not hardcore yet, but may approach to become one next 'cos of his tone of edit, profile & recalcitrant ways. I believe fellow SGpedians wld not want to see the likes of individuals following similar foot steps like this sockpuppet, or this troll again, which resulted in much disruptions & painstaking cleanups in recent memory. As u actively spotlight on copyvio & its enforcement, I brought this case to your attention as I assumed that it was not on your 'radar' earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've never claimed to champion the cause of copyvio enforcement. I've looked through his edits, and I see no evidence of sockpupetry. If you do see any, you can show me the diffs and I can see what I can do. We will sort them out at the appropriate time. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
From the tone of your latest reply mentioned above & below, it's meaningless for me to highlight the diffs anymore. Time will show to make one learn to see the truth one day. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice that those image copyright issues are settled. I've fixed the copyvio at Qifa Primary School. What other copyvios are there? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Except for the one u did recently, most were settled due to vigorous follow-ups done by Dave1185 earlier. I'm a member of WP:FACT & a tough vandal fighter, I do take editors or even admins to task if nec during my patrols, but will not resort to bullying ways as mentioned by Itub nor do I share or condone the aggressive comments or acts made by Dave1185 on his userpage earlier. I spotted his acts during my patrol & left a note as an uninvolved party, so that the situation do not spiral out of hand between them. I'm aware of WP:BITE & the aspirations listed under the WP:5P too, but does my earlier mentioned note (under the edit summary of 'A friendly advice' here) or my recent edit history in any way interpretated as such? I'm highly amused by Itub's interest & comments (LOL) of my postings here, but likewise would advise Itub to read WP:AGF first before commenting on a bona fide CUV member in future, so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding or conflict. Thank u for your response. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Your friendly advice seems neither friendly, nor advice. Seems more like a threat of a block. Do you expect me to watchlist all the Singapore-related articles simply because I'm a participant in WP:SG? I fix problems when they are brought to my attention, or when I come across them. I'm not apologetic about not having caught them earlier, because I simply did not see them previously. If that is what you are implying. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What have I implied other than to bring to your attention on this case & to clarify unfair allegations made on me by Itub earlier? Did I mentioned SPECIFICALLY that I'll take u or Itub to ArbCom earlier? I dunno what hit u today but I find your tone neither helpful nor constructive, esp one coming from an admin. Take a pause, reread & reflect. It's already worse to be lumped with someone else earlier when one is not as mentioned below & even worse to see such hot-headed out of context remarks coming from an admin whom I've highly regarded all these while! I've done what I need to do or say now, and I've no wish to continue this discussion further as I can see it's heading nowhere. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rifleman, if I may comment since I had your talk page on my watchlist and was curious enough to look at User:Bossieboy's page. I find it odd that User:Aldwinteo comes complaining to you right after User:Dave1185 vandalized User:Bossieboy's page and inserted personal threats (and even worse, labeling them as minor edits!). And User:Aldwinteo happily joined this bullying at User_talk:Bossieboy#Be_humble. All because Bossieboy listed a couple of articles in his contributions list in his user page that are not in his edit history! That's ridiculous. First, his user page is nobody's business as long as it's within the user page guidelines, and second, it is quite possible that he edited those two articles anonymously, perhaps by accident, perhaps before he created his account, or perhaps for some other reason. I suggest that the parties involved read WP:BITE. --Itub (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Itub, you're perfectly welcome to comment. I too saw those comments, and I wasn't impressed. For some reason, the Singaporean editors are very (unnecessarily and unjustifiably?) aggressive in WP. I deleted Dave's copyvio article at Sembawang Hot Springs twice too, so I guess he's not the one complaining about copyvio here.
With regard to Bossieboy (talk · contribs), listing down every single (even minor) edit is dumb. Arguing about it is even dumber.
Anyway, yes, Aldwinteo (talk · contribs) and Dave1185 (talk · contribs) should go take a look at WP:BITE. Thanks too for pointing it out to him/them. I was remiss in not doing that earlier. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On hindsight, I find it's rather unconstructive & 'ungentlemanly' behaviour to criticise Dave1185 without his knowledge, as he was not given an opportunity to give an account of his actions here earlier. As such, I'll leave a note to allow him to respond rightfully. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm... OK, as a completely uninvolved party, I really don't see any untoward behavior from Bossieboy, apart from what could simply be a case of the newbies, and I certainly don't see how his behavior in the diffs provided above constitutes trolling or evidence of sockpuppetry. This, on the other hand, was completely inappropriate, as were the first two messages in this thread. Just my 2 cents. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How convenient of you guys to leave me out of the loop, pertaining to some of these issues spoken behind my back, huh? Well, no matter... but here are a few points which I would like to clarify...
  1. Rifleman82, I don't give a rat-ass about what kind of admin you might be but let me just set you straight here. As Aldwinteo mentioned, "Sembawang Hot Springs (SHS)" is part of our historical heritage, I recreated it again only and only after I had taken the trouble to research it at Bras Basah NLB and I wrote it only once (not twice as claimed by you!), please get your eyes examined because I find it such a plausible excuse by you and I quote you: "I deleted Dave's copyvio article at Sembawang Hot Springs twice too, so I guess he's not the one complaining about copyvio here" when the actual fact is contrary to what I listed above, which is the reason behind recreating the same article but written in my own words. You chose to conveniently ignore my protest and blatantly deleted the whole article after your so-called close examination of that page because you felt that it was a near-verbatim copy of the original by NLB. BUT, had you gone down to NLB, you would would have known that NLB version contained quite a number of excerpts from Straits Times, WanBao and ZaoBao. Hence, I call you a blind admin for not spotting that and I quote myself: "talk about plagiarising, sheesh! " on my talkpage. Aldwinteo help recreated the same article again shortly thereafter and I don't see you batting an eyelid about his version? Which is in fact almost a near-verbatim version of the original NLB one but interjected by lots more references and images than what I had manage to gather previously.
  2. Having said that and read what you did on the article of "Qifa Primary School (QPS)" left me with one conclusion and that is you are wholeheartedly biased and double standard. Yes, I call you a wholeheartedly biased and double standard Admin. Why? Because if you could have so much of your free time to help re-edit "QPS", I don't see why you don't have the patience to help re-edit "SHS". My part on the "QPS" was pure and simple, tagging copyvio on those two images and the entire text uploaded by Bossieboy because of his apparent copy and paste form of creating that article. Kapish?
  3. And had you read through what I posted on the message page of Bossieboy, you would have known that I am personally very cheesed off by him because of his blatant disrespect for me by copying and paste almost all of what I wrote there directly into the page of West Coast, Singapore. Subsequently, I deleted them all and told him off to research for it properly and then rewrite it again. It was such a simple case but had he apologise then all was well but he didn't and how would you have expected me to treat him then? Normal newbies are curious and conscious of their actions and would not repeat their own mistakes but not this guy, so I treat him as a pariah.
  4. And to whom it might not concerned and not knowing how this piece of conversation came to be, please keep all your 5 cents or 2 cents worth of comments and cramp it up where the sun don't shine, this is not about you so don't make me come after your edits personally. In short, mind your own business.

I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. If you disagree with my delete , take it to WP:Deletion review. There are mechanisms for handling this.
  2. I am not responsible for every article on my watchlist. I edit those which interest me. So do you. If you think that's double standards, take it to WP:ARBCOM
  3. Read WP:BITE.
  4. Read WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As I've said before, I don't give a rat-ass about you. Like Aldwinteo, I strongly believe in the law of Karma, I said what I mean and mean what I said. You don't like it, too bad! I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template for basic chemical mechanisms

R-82, I noticed that you wrote a template for the deuterated solvents. I was wondering if it would be worth doing the same for basic chemical mechanisms i.e. SN1 SN2 E1 and E2 etc, as far as can tell, these reaction mechanisms are not very well linked together. All the best -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll write it in the morning. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't write Template:List of NMR solvents, but I can write the one for basic mechanisms quite easily. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a start: Template:Reaction mechanisms. What am I missing? Let me know and I'll put it in! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Good start, thanks - I'll let you know if I think of anything else - Quantockgoblin (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I got it into my head that you made the d-solvent template - however, you did a good job on the basic reaction mechs template - v.useful, thanks. I guess I should do my homework and figure how to make templates of my own! I think these templates could be used in a few more places, i.e a "reactive intermediate" template along the same lines would be useful - carbenes, nitrenes, radicals, carbocations, benzyne etc ... however, it looks like you might be busy with a big project of your own ... -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drugs on trial

Well, some of these have been around for a while and are certainly worth having (bacampicillin is one of those, I'd meant to create it myself). We've never actually established a minimum threshold for creating drug articles—I'm personally OK with anything in phase III, and having an assigned INN takes care of verifiability concerns :) Maybe I'm betraying a hint of inclusionism here... perhaps there should be further discussion on the matter? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's okay. I have no vested interest, and don't really care either way. The thought just struck me when I started doing the images. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin help needed

Somehow I and another editor have really butchered the naming and redirects for (MeO)4Si. Could you please rename this Tetramethyl orthosilicate. Sorry for the problems. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, Rifleman, but the article's been in my watchlist since I added the images to it—looks like the friendly competition continues! ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solder wick

You changed "Army Aircorp" to "[[Army Air Corps]]" in [[Solder wick]]. At the time, that was a link to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom). Did you mean that, did you mean United States Army Air Corps, or do you just not know?  Randall Bart   Talk  16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I changed it because it was clearly a typo, but I didn't know which it was. Hope this helps. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:LRT

Hi thanks for noticing. The full discussion is at Talk:Light Rail Transit (Singapore)#Correct_name?, where I have put forth the notion that if it was not possible to ascertain formal or common use from the sources we found, than the official name from the relevant authority should prevail, in this case the Land Transport Authority. As stated, I have found in both of their most recent published works, that the correct name is "Light Rapid Transit". oahiyeel, despite the evidence presented, has chosen not to agree, demanding to invite more comments (which he did not wait for either when he first iniated the renaming) and stalling the move request to have the name properly restored despite me allowing more than two weeks for discussions to happen. I hope you may assist to bring this issue to a conclusive close. Thanks in advance!--Huaiwei (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chem-awb suggestion

I was just noticing that there are quite a few chemicals articles in Category:Psychedelic phenethylamines that use an old-style infobox. Do you think you could use Chem-awb to update them to {{chembox new}} and tag the talk pages with {{chemicals}}? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chem-awb won't be able to convert the older-than-chembox (old) boxes, I'll fix them by hand over the next few days. It *can* add {{chemicals}} to it. I'll do that now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Tagging with {{chemicals}} would be good. I can help with manual conversion of infoboxes. But it just occurred to me ... perhaps getting input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants first would be best to make sure there are no objections there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is a chemical property, and I don't see how any discussion could rationally be in favor of keeping these boxes when almost all other chemicals use chembox new... Same goes for {{Explosivebox}}. I am in favor of just going ahead. Unfortunately, the proponents of {{drugbox}} are less keen on change. In a few, I'll do an AWB run and identify those lacking a chembox. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants‎, but I don't anticipate any objection. I'm sure I've converted a few in the past without a problem. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, okay. Since you're here, do you have any opinion on moving pancuronium to pancuronium bromide? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment at Talk:Pancuronium. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The list. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is now here.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the list. I'll probably get to some of them tomorrow. Shall we just cross off from the list as we go through them? -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, let's. We'll continue the discussion on pancuronium there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your mission (should you choose to accept it)

Hi. I probably shouldn't have chosen to accept my mission! But I did, and have left some comments at my talk page. Rather than replying there, I think that the best thing is for any further discussion of this issue to take place at WP:PUI. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Respiratory disease
Quaternary ammonium cation
Benzimidazole
Poise
Hydrobromic acid
Zenker's fixative
Mannheim process
Cyanic acid
Cadmium sulfide
Racemization
Scandium(III) oxide
Mineral acid
Boron trifluoride
Inorganic compounds by element
Phosphorus pentabromide
Potassium ferrocyanide
Coordination geometry
Tetramminecopper(II) sulfate
Potassium sodium tartrate
Cleanup
Borax
List of organic chemistry topics
Supercritical carbon dioxide
Merge
Steam reforming
Freeze distillation
2-Butoxyethanol
Add Sources
Ethylene oxide
Neutralization
Freebase
Wikify
Photoengraving
Transport in Singapore
Boo Koo
Expand
Directive 67/548/EEC
Melamine
Green computing

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benzalkonium chloride

Hi Rifleman. Can you change the subtitle of the chemical structure you drawed to "n = 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18"? There are no odd C-chains (see e.g. here, Table 1 on p. 4). Thanks. --Leyo 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I added the reference for that to the article. --Leyo 17:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bromite

Yea! I found it out myself, but not before I did it wrong! Thanks --Stone (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aufbau Principle

Hi Rifleman 82!

Thanks for welcome note. I understand that you are the Administrator here.

I need to discuss Aufbau Principle article. There is one phrase there that seems confusing:

"Elemental copper should have 11 electrons in the outermost shell. But, its electronic configuration is [Ar].3d10.4s1. instead of [Ar].3d9.4s2. due to the greater stability of a half-filled or fully-filled orbital."

1. Elemental copper does have 11 electrons in the outermost shell in both cases listed:[Ar].3d10.4s1 and [Ar].3d9.4s2. I think it should say instead: Elemental copper should have 9 electrons in subshell 3d. But,...

2. It should also say: due to the greater stability of a half-filled than (instead of "or") fully-filled orbital.

I think it should be fixed?

Drova (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I am an admin here, but that is for administrative things. I can discuss content issues, though I am not an authority on things chemical. I see your point. Do go ahead, be bold, and make the changes. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2,6-diaminopyridine

Hi Rifleman 82

At the beginning I'd like to introduce myself : I am M.Sc student in organometallic complexes & Its application as catalysts in organic reactions . I know you are specializing in organometallic chemistry so I'll really need your help & I'll be very grateful to you. I have a problem in preparation of 2,6 –diaminopyridine derived from 2,6-diacetylpyridine with aromatic amine . Help me Lily26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily26 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure if you are talking about an article, or this particular transformation. I've tried to search for this compound, but I can't find it.
As you can imagine, OM is a huge field, and don't feel qualified to comment on this particular example. Have you read Reductive_amination? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strontium titanate

Red=O; blue=Sr; green=Ti
Red=O; blue=Sr; green=Ti

Hi Rifleman 82,

I am not going to argue with an MO chemist about classification. Unfortunately, physicists call strontium titanate a TMO. Also a wikipedia article has the same classification - see Strontium titanate. Perhaps, a note on proper classification from chemical perspective is needed but I am not qualified to make it. Physics community has huge number of papers calling it an oxide. Here is one example http://people.na.infn.it/~marrucci/reprints/prb07.pdf

Thanks,

Freecat (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I think a more accurate descriptor will be "oxo compound" or "oxo anion" - this implies there are X=O bonds. To me at least, a TM oxide would be a binary compound MxOy (whether or not it is a simple "ionic compound", a polymeric network compound, or a discrete molecule. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will talk to the people who work with TMOs tomorrow and will fix it sometime this week. Freecat (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a compound with discrete TiO32−, but a perovskite, with the structure shown in the figure to the right. I don't know if it should be called a mixed oxide or not, but since there are no formal X=O bonds, perhaps oxo anion is not the best description. --Itub (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Itub. I asked Axio, our resident inorg expert to take a look at it. If you don't see X=O, I guess calling it an oxo anion would not be quite appropriate. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, physicists do call strontium titanate and similar materials TMOs. Whether it is correct or not chemically it does not matter at this point. It is accepted terminlogy in a large community. The origin of this use is in doping actual transition metal oxides, well, except the dopant concentration can run from 0 to 100%. And yes, STO and SVO etc are perovskites: e.g. see Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy of perovskite-type transition-metal oxides and their analyses using tight-binding band structure PHASE TRANSITIONS, 79 (8): 617-635 AUG 2006 Freecat (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing chemistry topics.

Actually, I put in "attention" tags but you're right, "expand" could have been better. I noticed these because they are linked to my missing chemistry topics page as well - Skysmith (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tungsten carbide

Thanks for the star! Seeing as you have read tungsten carbide perhaps you could advise me on what can be done to further improve it.
There are a number of WC "compounds" W2C W3C and WC(1-x) - the last two are defect structures and W2C has lots of polymorphs which are nearly all the same but slightly different, if you take my meaning. I had thought of splitting out the W2C compound (it is commercially available apparently - presumably used when coating at high T. or when carburising so forming WC in the coating - however I do not know and engineering contacts are of little help.)- there is some good stuff about the Luftwaffe and first use of titanium carbide armor piercing shells-- which refers to "W2C" (W2C ??)- but I cannot corroborate this.(as an aside-the use of the carbide rather than tungsten- why? W is pretty dense so why go to all the trouble of producing the carbide- why not just use the metal- with you military background perhaps you can enlighten me?)
The alternative to producing another article could be to put a section in the tungsten carbide article referring to W2C and the other W-C phases and leave it at that- any thoughts?--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swapping of "Virginal" and "Virginals"

Hi, we need the help of an administrator over at "Virginals". Can you please swap "Virginal" and "Virginals" for us, i.e., make "Virginal" the main article and "Virginals" the redirect? See the discussion at "Talk:Virginals#Article name: "Virginal" or "Virginals"?". Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

STRONG OBJECT - sorry, I happen to specialise in music of this period, and in literature of the period it's ALWAYS referred to as Virginals or a pair of Virginals. It's like 'scissors' and 'jeans' - a plural noun that refers to a singular object. This is as silly as moving scissors to scissor or jeans to jean. I know this is a far more obscure topic than either of those, but please consult those of us who are musicians before moving an article like this, particularly if you're not familiar with the topic at hand. Please move it back to Virginals. InfernoXV (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to wait til Sunday for you guys to sort it out and decide which it should be, before I move it either way. At the moment, the article title and the article lede do not contradict, so there is little harm done either way. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledged! I'd point out that Jacklee is not a musician and while I applaud his efforts at getting the format and style of the article improved, he is clearly not familiar with the subject matter. InfernoXV (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look, I did raise the issue on the article's talk page, and the main editor of the article had no objection to the change. No one else weighed in on the discussion (though perhaps I should have waited a bit longer before requesting Rifleman 82's help). I was just going with what appeared to be the more common usage, according to the OED and Google. But of course I'm happy to defer to your superior knowledge in this area. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rifleman 82. Another administrator, Gwib, has moved the article back to "Virginals". Anyway, thanks for your help. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:Flomoxef.png

It looks like you noticed the same thing at the same time as me.  :) It didn't really fit speedy deletion criteria, but I think it's best to have deleted anyway. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

Hey R-82, just wondering if you can give some advice on this edit. It looks like spam to me, they've put a link into both the References and the External links. I'd revert it but I'm not sure if I should interpret this as spam or not. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Yes, certainly spam. I've rolled it back. Thanks for letting me know. In future, you can WP:Be bold and revert by yourself!--Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll look into getting some rollback tools one day. Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I figured I had to get some sort of permission but didn't really want to be asking anyone. I'll go easy on it. Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At it again with Needle aspiration biopsy from a different address. Didn't think I'd be using rollback that quick... Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot for adding categories

Hi, I remember you once offered me help with robotic changes to categorization. The time has finally come! I just created the article on name reactions, that is, chemical reactions named after their discoverers or developers. I also created Category:Name reactions. There are hundreds of name reactions that could be added to this category. I've put a list at User:Itub/Name reactions. Could you use your bot to add them to that category? Thanks, Itub (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rifleman 82/Psychedelics

Looks like we're all done now. Thanks for your help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calcium carbonate

Hi there

I noticed your recent edit of calcium carbonate. I have a few questions; perhaps you can explain?

  1. I don't think the "test" you have listed is appropriate for this section of the article. The tone of that section is not appropriate either - WP is not a howto.
  2. I don't understand why you replaced a properly formatted citation into a simple link which goes to a subscription-only site.
  3. The Farsi inter-wiki looks correct. I suppose you have a reason for removing it?

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi there Rifleman, you must have me confused with someone else. I didn't add that section you are referring to. I added a definition of its use in the oil industy. I may have corrected some spelling or grammatical errors, though.

Mudgineer (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)