Hi there. Your image is grainy because it is at a low resolution. The chemists at [[WP:CHEMISTRY]] have come up with guidelines for drawing chemical structures; considerations include having a sufficiently high resolution for it to be easily resized. Perhaps you can take a look at [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Structure_drawing]]? --[[User:Rifleman 82|Rifleman 82]] ([[User talk:Rifleman 82#top|talk]]) 06:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Your image is grainy because it is at a low resolution. The chemists at [[WP:CHEMISTRY]] have come up with guidelines for drawing chemical structures; considerations include having a sufficiently high resolution for it to be easily resized. Perhaps you can take a look at [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Structure_drawing]]? --[[User:Rifleman 82|Rifleman 82]] ([[User talk:Rifleman 82#top|talk]]) 06:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
== Ions not getting chemboxes ==
Hi, you mentioned on [[Nitrate]] that ions don't get chemboxes, does that mean that [[Ammonium]] should have it's chembox removed too?
Also, out of curiosity, why is it that ions don't get chemboxes. I originally went to the Nitrate page to look up it's Molar mass and was quite annoyed that it didn't have a chembox that I could quickly look at and find the relevant information. Instead I had to read through the article to find it. It just seems to me to be inconsistent to not have them. [[User:Loserpenguin15|Loserpenguin15]] ([[User talk:Loserpenguin15|talk]]) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the Faradaic current stub. You changed the sentence 'the net faradaic current is the algebraic sum of all the faradaic currents flowing through the electrode or through an indicator' to 'the net faradaic current is the algebraic sum of all the faradaic currents flowing through the indicator electrode or working electrode'. The current may not necessarily be flowing through an electrode which is why the word indicator was used. I think it would be better if the definition was more general, what do you think? Originalwana (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for your comments. Since the Gold Book was referenced, I was trying to make our definition in line with it. While it says "indicator" in the ref, that word is hyperlinked to "indicator electrode". As a chemist, the first thing which comes to mind by "indicator" is some sort of dye, so I was looked at the ref to understand it better. I'm no expert in electrochemistry, so please feel free to change it as you see fit. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon monoxide section order
Hi, the section order that the Chemistry project agreed upon seems fine for chemists, and is appropriate for chemicals that only occur in labs. But articles on certain substances that are important outside the lab --- like carbon monoxide, oxygen, water, nicotine, ethanol --- are much more likely to be read by non-chemists; and therefore should be organized according to their interests. In particular, the history, uses, health and environmantal aspects of CO are far more important overall than the electronic strcuture and techncal info on reactions and such. Please note that WP articles do not "belong" to particular groups or projects. WP is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a colelction of independent technical manuals. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sodium Sulfate
Hi Rifleman,
I'm curious why you reverted my edit to the sodium sulfate page (I added a sentence about it being one of the byproducts of the reaction between baking soda and sulfuric acid). thanks.
207.55.20.68 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)trappem aka 207.55.118.60[reply]
While that is true, sodium sulfate is the byproduct of many reactions, and I don't see why this reaction is especially noteworthy. However, if you do have a reason for including this particular reaction, I am open to discussion. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. The reason I thought this particular reaction was of interest is because it is the reaction you get when you clean car battery terminals with baking soda. As this application is the one that more folks will actually have personal experience with, it seemed a worthwhile piece of information to include. For me, the natural question when performing this procedure is, "What are the byproducts I am creating?" It seems appropriate that Wikipedia should provide this answer. best regards, 207.55.20.237 (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) trappem[reply]
Thanks for your continued help. Did you see this editor adding methanol solubility data? Seems ill-advised. Also if you get a chance, can you figure out why entried into the ChemBox for Prismane do not show. Again, thanks for your many efforts.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SF, I haven't seen Romney's contributions previously, but I have now. I have an inkling about what's going on from reading science blogs. You can take a look at Open_Notebook_Science_Challenge - they are trying to systematically collect solubility data of ... stuff. I agree with you that while aqueous solubility is often quoted in Ksp or g/mL in the chembox, solubility in organic solvents is usually stated as per CRC: insoluble, slight, soluble, very soluble. After all, there are too many, and referencing becomes a problem for a box intended to be concise. Lastly, while Wikipedia is often more responsive than traditional media to new and "hot" movements, I don't think we're here to promote the Open Notebook Science project this way.
As for the IUPAC name for prismane, you have to click on the "show" button for the IUPAC name to appear. That's a compromise some of our editors have decided on, since IUPAC names can be almost infinitely long, distorting the chembox. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rifleman, could you please make so that the move protection for Ununbium will expire on the first of January 2010, as that is when the name change is going to be (or expected, rather) to be implemented, thanks 92.236.88.188 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out Of Interest
Hello Rifleman, Interested to note the edit dates of liquid nitrogen being used for cooling computers , do you know who is credited with that invention and the exact date of invention ,if so could you let me know please Clayton Wyatt (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Wyatt (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of National Council on Problem Gambling (United States), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: National Council on Problem Gambling (Singapore). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have difficulty with the current chembox image? It looks weird, some sort of SVG error I believe. I'm going to dig out a nice PNG to replace it until it's fixed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are a primary author of the myoglobin article. I have a question for you on the topic which may or may not be appropriate for inclusion: In a rare steak, the red juices are mostly myoglobion, right? Is it accurate to tell squeamish people that myoglobin is not blood? Could you answer via email: meathead@amazingribs.com
Quedude (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm hardly the primary author for this article. In any case, I am a synthetic inorganic chemist, not a biochemist, so I am hardly an expert in this topic. Sorry I can't help you here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rifleman. The file above should have hexaldehyde as the product according to the reference. All three compounds have an extra carbon in them. Could you please fix it? Thank you. --Choij (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was my edit removed? I merely added links to the individual halls of residences websites and NUS Society - which is a branch of NUS Alumni. --wkwloo (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a directory. Considering the number of daughter organizations NUS has, it would be impossible, impractical, and undesirable to list the websites of them all. Inline external links break the flow of text, and are jarring for the reader and for this case, I don't see a compelling need for these links. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I disagree with you. While there are many departments, faculties, research institutes, etc... in NUS, some are more important than others and deserve external links. In this case here, the activities, structure and traditions in halls are not described in much detail. On the other hand, halls of residences constitute a very integral part of life in any university (as an ex-hall resident I can testify to that); hence, it makes sense to welcome the reader to click on the link and view more details in the respective hall's pages.
Another point to note, there are potentially many foreign visitors/students to NUS - and they would be interested to know details of the halls of residences that they would possibly be staying. This is an added boon. While yes, it is possible to google for them - then it would defeat the purpose of "external links" in Wikipedia entirely. --wkwloo (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NowCommons: File:Transesterification of triglycerides.gif
Dear R-82
Sorry to trouble you with this, but I trust your judgement.
A1 seems to think the reference I've added don't make sense.
I've been adding much needed references to chemical articles related to apparatus/simple chemical purification processes.
I think at least A1 could have done is to check with me before reverting my references.
I'm not even sure he is a chemist.
Adding references at the best of times is no fun (I think I'll give it a miss in the future!).
If you feel that my references are not good then I'll accept it.
- Quantockgoblin (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted this article recently and replaced the correct formulae of both enantiomers of this racemic drug by a formulae of a specific enantiomer. This specific enantiomer is only present in the active compound by 50%. Thus, I would like to ask you to reconsider this move. Thanks. --Jü (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you have temporarily blocked User:J4V4 for uncooperative editing. Just thought I would point out that this user has also done some borderline vandalistic edits, which he tries to hide by blanking his talk page every now and then so that the vandalism notices are not visible unless you go through the page history. I don't know what should be done in such a case, as this user has a long-term history of unilateral edits, sometimes helpful, sometimes not, which he refuses to discuss. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Thanks!—Tetracube (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tetracube
Indeed, his habit of blanking his talk page without ever having responded to other users' concerns was the main reason behind the temp block. Thanks for dropping by, I will continue to keep an eye there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diphosphine
I created diphosphine (P2H4), which was previously a redirect to diphosphines. My plan is to replace all of the diphosphine links to "diphosphine ligand|diphosphine." If you think that I have made a mess, we could reverse engineer the process and start over again. Your advice and experience is very welcome. I'll check back later.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smokefoot, no problem. I've noticed your previous discussion with the diphosphine chemist and I have no objections. I'll help where I can. If you have something specific in mind, please let me know. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting the Strem info on Wiki. I am new to this medium. I am a Strem empployee and we wanted to provide a bit more iformation that what was originally posted. I see that you have commented that it should not be an advert. Is there a happy medium where we can post more than what is currently up there? What is an appropriate length?
Thanks for getting in touch. That you are a Strem employee should not preclude you from contributing to that article at all. In fact, you might have a better perspective. That said, if you intend to do extensive edits on this particular article, you may wish to mention that on your user page; you can look at User:Smokefoot for an example.
Thirdly, user communication is essential to this site, so please keep tabs on Talk:Strem Chemicals, because if someone has a suggestion or is unhappy with a recent change, they may put it here. What "works" determined in a consultative manner.
In short, there is no "appropriate length" for the article. It can be expanded in as much detail as desired, bearing in mind the above considerations. Do remember that personal knowledge needs to be backed up with citations. Hope this helps, happy editing! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing which you can do is to provide a few appropriate photographs. What I might suggest is
a photograph of your main office (I took that photo when I visited with User:Walkerma a few years ago. You might have something nicer)
a photograph of a few of your products, preferably something representative
a photograph of your facilities
your corporate logo
These pictures should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons: you can access it at http://commons.wikimedia.org/. Your username here should work there as well. Take note that only freely licensed images (items 1-3) are allowed there. There are a range of licenses permitted, please choose one which you & Strem can live with. I can give further advise if you need. Hope this helps! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same information which you've attempted to add the last time. I'm not sure what's changed. I'll let it stand for a moment, but could you PLEASE read what I wrote above and see how it fits? Please bear in mind that Strem Chemicals is not designed to promote your company - it is designed to provide factual information about it. If it is nice information, even better. See WP:PEACOCK. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!
"(Copyright by YOUNG-IL CHEMICAL in Rep. of Korea)" is not appropriate or even accurate. It might be a trademark, but it is certainly not a copyright. In any case, it need not be mentioned. With regard to Acesulfame K, his edit was terribly written and introduces speculation backed up by non-authoritative source (http://www.holisticmed.com/acek/). An authoritative source would be something from the peer-reviewed literature, for example. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So could you please allow me to edit like "...and 'Epifume'"(Brand name in Korean market)? As well as a kind comment like "To help search webs related to Korea for the same product but with different brand name" will be added. / Your kind advice will be appreciated. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" ... and 'Epifume'" should be sufficient. If all the other brand names list their countries or markets, perhaps the mention of Korea is appropriate. But this is not the case. Wikipedia is not aimed at search engine optimization. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know that google results wikipedia link on the top all the times with any given keyword if it can find the title in wikipedia? Moreover, most times it gives small gategorized subresults of the given keyword from wikipedia. Everybody wants to see wikipedia result first of all in search result. Not only google but also most major search engines are giving wiki result on top. What do you think Wikipedia is without search engines? Most contributors entered Wikipedia by googling. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I mean. I'm saying that promoting specific brands by attempting improving search engine rankings is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rifleman, Epifume of Young-il Chem. has nothing to do with brand promotion. Nowadays in Korea it's rather something to do with unmasking a conspiracy involved with government driven rice stock keeping policy using Epifume. Epifume is not something which can be sold in public in Korea. Only government authories can use this chemical and Young-il Chem. is an exclusive supplier, though some are circulating through black market. Korean gov. hadn't announced its use of this chemical since 1997 until journalists urged in mid 2000s. /// In Korea, they call this "Epi-hyoom" because it's easier to pronounce "Epifume" in Korea. So it took an hour of web-searching for me to realise that it means "Epifume" and another hour to find out that "Epifume" is a brand name for the chemical product out of "Aluminium Phosphide" and Young-il Chem. is a kind of branch office of National Agricultural Cooperative Federation driven by Government. At last Wikipedia gave me great information on this chemical and I wished others not to waste time nor fail to find out its true origin. /// Can I create another Wiki title "Epifume" to put additional information such as manufacturer's name and other background knowledge? /// Regarding " ... and 'Epifume'", how'bout doing like "... and 'Epifume'(Korean market specific)." or "... and 'Epifume'(Korean market restricted)."? --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can of course, create the article Epifume and redirect it to aluminium phosphide by placing #REDIRECT [[aluminium phosphide]] in the article. If there is enough material to constitute an article about this particular brand of aluminium phosphide, you can by all means start an article there. I'm still not too keen on specifying Epifume (Korea) or similar. If you feel that strongly about it, perhaps you can bring it up on Talk:Aluminium phosphide. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Marker degradation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marker degradation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
RM82, if I may ask you, why the revert to the Tamil text? Is there something I don't know? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm all ears to what light you can shed, thanks. --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™16:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must have clicked the wrong button as I was going through my watchlist. Sorry for that. I've restored the version before I clicked, but I have no idea as to your dispute. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should the starting form of copper really be "CuO", or would be better as "Cu2+" or something including the tartrate ligand? The former doesn't seem technically correct, and as given, the reaction is not fully balanced. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DMacks... thanks for pointing it out. I stupidly replicated the original jpg image blindly without thinking about it... CuO should be a black solid.
This is just for discussion... I'll put L = tartarate in the final and label them with numbers for easy referencing in the text... but what do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved, yes. I'm still uncertain about the ligand...what is its actual binding mode, and protonation/ionic form in solution? The earlier reaction of its formation in the Fehling's solution article is definitely wrong (net charge is redundant with internal formal charges, and doesn't even match the total!), but I don't know which O bind, etc. DMacks (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I've been thinking that tartaric acid might chelate copper somewhat like EDTA does, but without any literature support that's simply speculation. I'm not even sure about the tartrate:copper stoichiometry. I think that the tartrate is important to keep copper in solution at alkaline pH, instead of getting Cu(OH)2 as a light blue precipitate. How about replacing it with a generic [LnCu]2+ ? The coordination chemistry of copper is not quite important with regard to the redox reaction... --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always just said "it keeps it in a soluble form" and never looked any further either:) [LnCu]2+ or [LnCu2+] sounds like a good, um, solution. DMacks (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are all sorts of copper(II) tartrate complexes in solution, going right up to [Cu(tart)6]10−doi:10.1080/00032717208064332. The important point is to have a good excess of tartrate, as the salt copper(II) tartrate is only sparingly soluble in water (it forms a polymeric structure, doi:10.1080/00958970500148446): I believe this is why you have to prepare Fehling's solution fresh for each test, as it will precipitate copper(II) tartrate on standing. Copper(II) citrate is much more soluble – it forms a 1:1 complex, [Cu(cit)(OH)]2−[2], without bridging ligands – and this is why Benedict's reagent can be stored as a single solution. Physchim62(talk)13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DMacks & PC. So that should be [LnCu]2-2n, then L = tartarate2- (as an image, of course!). I can't draw it now, but I'll be able to do it tomorrow at work. What do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can go over the article to see what can be truncated.
There is the point that with literature oscillation over the years and Arthur Birch's
never really giving up the "meta" mechanism, there tends to be some confusion in "popular"
texts. For example, I noted that the Virtual Organic Text, which is on the web, only recently
got the mechanism corrected.
Thus the historical aspect helps clarify things regarding what is really correct.
I need to delay a bit since I'm running a large Symposium in Pacifichem and have been kept really
occupied with getting all the Abstracts read and analyzed and the two days of lectures organized
and put into the (Scholar One) "Sessions" with detailed times. There is a deadline for this being
done coming up shortly.
Sure, take your time. When I can find some, I'll give it a go too. There are certain stylistic issues which Wikipedia prefers. I understand it takes getting used to - I was new here once. Apart from that, perhaps you can give the content some thought. Perhaps you can order the article hierarchically, grouping by theme. The titles of the headers also seem a little dramatic for WP as well. Anyway, take your time, think about it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you mentioned on Nitrate that ions don't get chemboxes, does that mean that Ammonium should have it's chembox removed too?
Also, out of curiosity, why is it that ions don't get chemboxes. I originally went to the Nitrate page to look up it's Molar mass and was quite annoyed that it didn't have a chembox that I could quickly look at and find the relevant information. Instead I had to read through the article to find it. It just seems to me to be inconsistent to not have them. Loserpenguin15 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
