User talk:R8R

ACHTUNG! PARENTAL ADVISORY WARNING!

This page may contain explicit lyrics or explicit content.

It, however, doesn't. Word "fuck" doesn't appear anywhere. Oh wait, that was just...

Barnstar for the work on fluorine

		The Chemistry Star
		I want to reward you with a barnstar for the nice work on the now Goods Article fluorine! Stone (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for kind message. Shake your manly hand! RESPECT. TCO (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I will get to fluorine

I was just skimming it and it has some very nice aspects to it. Better than I remembered!  :-)

Think it just needs a good check for refs and copyvio (given some of the content over the years from previous Wiki editors...I worry for little land mines left behind) and a bit of prose polish on new content you've put in.

There were some "extras" that I wanted to add, which would fit and just make it more stellar, but no one will mind if they are not in there.

Have some health things I need to concentrate on and it takes a lot of concentration to work on an article like this. So, I may mess with it some, but may need to concentrate elsewhere. In any case, like I said, it is a good-looking article.

Hope your gramps is OK and even if not, hope you treasure the time with him.

TCO (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine: Copyediting for FAC, September 2011

Hello! I am copy-editing Fluorine as per the request you made in August. I have a few questions about the article. Would you prefer that I post them here or on the article's talk page? Thanks! Quae legit (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Again! I am almost done with reviewing Fluorine (just two sections left). I hope I've done a reasonable job. Unfortunately, I will be very busy for the next week or so. However, I will finish going over the article as soon as I can scare up some free time! Quae legit (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you mind if I use your layout for your "To Do" subpage for my own subpage, of course giving credit to you? I found it to be a very good layout. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, take it if you want. I'm not a maniacal owner of any of my ideas, so feel free to take any you like without asking for a permittion--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

GAN of Astatine

I have passed Astatine as a GA. I feel that it satisfies the GA criteria. One thing, however, is the image issue that will likely always be a problem for this article. Despite this, it meets all the other criteria, and should be in no danger of being delisted anytime soon. Hope you continue your good work! Yankeesrule3 (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks about it :) I don't think that there's no image of astatine will affect anything, but the article needs (and will get) a few other images. I'm thinking of bringing it to FAC one day (hope to have a chance to do it in 2011). So you mentioned it won't maybe pass the FAC (about the Production and uses section). What do you think is not covered? Please leave any comments on this or article's talk page. Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think everything is covered in that section, but I think it could use some more organization before being submitted to FAC. The table just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the section, and seems like it was forced in. Other than that, and the aforementioned images, I do not see any other problems (I am sort of new, however, and probably do not have enough experience to say that nothing else is wrong). Yankeesrule3 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Romances Peer Review 3

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Romances/archive3.
Message added 19:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bad penny turning up...

Hey commie. TCO (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking At (haha) it now

Cool element. Article has a lot of good stuff. I think we can tighten some flabby wording (no loss of meaning). I will also want to look at Greenwood and Earnshaw to see if anything to add, if it all makes sense, etc. I have no experience or feel for At as it is so rare. Is a mystery to me. Bi and Pb are about the highest up, I am familiar with.

TCO (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am doing F first.TCO (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

pdf's of the fluorine sources

Hey R8r:

Do you have pdfs for any of the sources in fluorine? Particularly the Ulmann Chemical Encyclopedia articles? If not, no biggie. I will somehow track down from a uni library here or via research requests on Wiki. Just appreciate if you have any of that if you can share. Obviously stuff that is online available, I will just access that way.

TCO (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Astatine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic number (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) 11:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, brave Russian

Take care, there, in snowy Siberia. Hope all is well with family, econ, etc. That is what matters! TCO (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thallium as an alkali metal, and the "uranide" series

For thallium (which you raised at Talk:Alkali metal) and your comments at Talk:Periodic table, do you know the sources for these? They sound very interesting and should probably be in the alkali metal and periodic table articles. Thank you, Double sharp (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Promethium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primordial (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) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

turning fluorine over

Hey...man. I want to do a little "turn over".

turned off and tuning out

I am turned off of Wiki in general. There are some fun people and. at times, I love the interaction, especially with newbies and with science types and image types. But then...there are a lot of people that seem to want to control other people (going all the way up to Jimbo Wales, who does not write articles, even occasionally as an example). I really don't enjoy interactions with these people...would not want to serve in the military with them. Would not want to drink a beer with them. Think they get so used to the mechanisms of control (of edit warring, of policy writing, of moderation, of cliques...they just internalize this stuff and think this way) that they completely lose track of how ideas are exchanged in the real world. Where people have multiple outlets, where there is a free press (not a lobbied for control Signpost paper), and where others can not edit war and overwrite your content. Anyhow, don't let it bother you, just explaining my feeling.

Content and refs

I'm mostly done with a very first pass through "Fluorine". I think to really make it shine, it is important to engage with the content. Not just "polish up what is there". I have added some stuff and sources, like with fluoropolymers and the like. Really, I think to do it right, one should get a copy/pdf of every single source (I guess just relevant book pages for books). This would at least make sure that all our refs are valid (there were a very small number that were bogus before). But more importantly allows checking out really what is said and how/what we are deciding to tell the readers.

I know this is a Herculean task requiring academic library access. That said, it is how I would honestly handle it if I were writing a real review for a real journal in the real world. I would just have a (fat) manilla folder or even a desk drawer with all the relevant papers.

Doing this also allows for follow-on work, targeting the most important articles. For example PTFE has extremely high views (50,000, I think) comparable to F itself. CFC has very high views, etc. etc. That said, although I "know" how do this stuff, I really am not interested in doing much more for free. Especially for the people running this site. It's a shame...as the readers would benefit much more from coordinated deliberate written reviews. Rather than collections of snippets. But, I'm not going to spend much more time doing this for free. Would rather write real papers or books or even just blog posts. (And although, there is a lot lacking in Wiki, when one starts to look at Google book and all the book length reviews of fluoropolymers and the like (even turtles), it is amazing how much well compiled review information is out there for mankind.)

If we were going to prioritize, I think getting pdfs of the 3 Ullman's chem encyclopedia papers (which we rely on a huge amount) would be high value. I just HAVE NOT read them. Ref help desk can pull them and email or dropbox them. Would just be really good to go through those. I hope you have. I have not.  :(

I worry when we just rely on previous people's references. At a minimum, we should read the sources. At a max, doing own Google web/book/scholar searches for new sources is indicated. I have found that when I pull the actual sources and read them, I understand much better what the story is (e.g. with the fluorine in stars stuff) and understanding it better can communicate better to the reader (like with the star stuff, there is really a cool narrative and we just had a set of isolated strange factoids and terms and stuff).

I find that Google book is very helpful for getting kind of overview content on things like fluoropolymers, agrichemicals, etc. (And a lot of times, Google view gives enough info. Some people will scold that, but I think it is better to have some info than none and I can tell if I have the right pages and content to make a call...and if worst comes to worst ask the Ref Desk to supply with not viewed pages).

I think we still need sources for some of the stuff I added. Like with the Gore paragraph. Most of that can be cited to the Hounshell DuPont R&D history book. (which is a top notch history, independantly produced and critical often.) The positive comments on DuPont and Gore are true and relevant summaries of the basic situation...those companies were huge in development of PTFE. I'm not being promotional...it's just an expert opinion and helpful for the reader to have this sort of basic intuition for how things developed. Will get same take from a book on fluoropolymers also...and then we can cite it and all.

I know agrichem really ought to have a couple sentences added to explain the growth in that industry as well as the trade-off of cost versus efficacy. Also important to explain that the addition of fluorine to these molecules is essentially done for the same reasons as the pharmaceuticals. IOW, the addition of fluorine is to tailor the molecules so the ring is stabilized and not metabolized or so molecules cross the lipid barrier better. IOW, even though they are being used in "pesticides", the fluorine is really not there to act as THE POISON, but just to help the poison get where it needs to go or stay around longer. Also mentioning the most famous named fluorine agrichemical, Trifluralin. Here is a good reference on the agrichems: [1] and (older).

There are some notes in article talk also. Like the homoconjugation stuff that was added needs work. Basically homoconjugation is NOT why HF is weaker than HCl. It's just ANOTHER cool concept which is that HF basicaly changes it's equilibrium constant at different concentraitons! (becomes higher pKa with more HF! amazing!). I actually like it, and that we point to our article on it, but it's ANOTHER aspect. The basic explanation of HF being stronger in water (despite being so ionic) is that both HF and H2O have very strong hydrogen bonding properties (that is a little handwavey, but your choice if you want to explain the whole thing). The old ref that you had gives a good explanation and is a "good ref" since the writer is a college professor and the content was written for chem explanation.

Pics

(You know how I am here, I just think we need "sugar" to go with the "medicine" of the technical topic...and I think graphic representations make understanding easier for those who are weaker technically (they complement technical explanations and give another mechanism for people to say "oh, yeah, I guess I get it").

1. Small tweak of the Al refining diagram requested at Graphics lab.

2. I also requested another molecule diagram from Ben Mills. My thinking is to have another "small strip" (the guy who did our other strip work can compile it), but showing the two drugs, the aenesthetic, and the agrichemical. Can display centered. I cut that stuff on purpose out of the strip within Compounds (basically putting all the biology stuff in biology section). We could either nuke or keep the current right justified line diagram drug (caption is nice, fits in with the story on ring stabilization).

3. I asked for a diagram to show F electronic structure at Graphics Lab. Think it will help the reader and really support the whole article where we go on and on about F wanting another e-. My thinking was it would go centered or left justified. Probably centered.

4. I'm a little torn on having the dolphin picture. That is really more of a pretty picture than an explanatory diagram. To be nice to the "English majors". I could have put in a pic of serum albumin or the like, but I feel like we have so many molecule pics and pics of protein always just look like a snarl of yarn that tells nothing. That said, we could nuke it entirely if you think too cheesey.

tightening

1. I think some of the sentences about "brand name" of Teflon and such can be combined or shortened into parenthetical phrases. Important info to get over to reader, but I was just slapping stuff down and was a little longwinded.

2. If you want to cut more radically, feel free. I just didn't think stuff really made sense before and it was easier to just explain it. I think the reader should have some sort of narrative or some sort of structured explanation in connected sentences. Not just wikilinks. And a lot of times, the articles we sent people to did not give them a good explanation either (were in bad shape). But do as you like.

format

I think when you have all the content the way you want it, still will need go through on format.

1. Whole thing needs a brushthrough to cut overlinking (Ucucha has a good script). I favor a very strict "link only at first use". Because I think blue reduces readability. Some people like to link more, especially in long articles. Your choice.

2. Whole thing needs a brushthrough for ref format. Just a laborious check for all the stuff that NikkiMaria hits on. Best done by looking at the actual output, printing the article. There will still be a few glitches found, but I'm sure there are a gazillion now. We need to clean it up the absolute best we can, before subjecting it to further review. (people will lose patience otherwise.)

peer review

I think the thing needs another mass peer review. After you have it as perfect as possible. What I would imagine doing is making a little list of people and ask them to review (and actively copyedit) specific sections/aspects. (the article is just to big otherwise.) I would not rely on "the system", but use orange-bar mobilization instead, with tailored requests. Something like:

• Wehwalt: lead

• Fifelfoo: refs

• Person X: history

• Person Y: compounds

• Sasata: bio aspects

• etc. etc. on sections

• RexxS: tables

• Image person (FS or Matsci or whoever): images

Technical comprehension

I think we need to steer a middle course here and with a very firm hand on the tiller as people will try to push it too far to both the left and right. Some of the English major types on Wiki will just never like an article like this. They just won't. They want their "sex in the palace" narratives that make them feel all Brit-erudite and sophisticatedly risque and that have high human interest. On the other hand, you will have technical types that want to plop down unvarnished technical terms when really a very easy workaround is possible. I think we ought to aim for something that is comprehensible to the vast majority of people that have had a college chemistry course or an AP high school course. Or high school students with above average intellegecne and wanting to consult something less difficult than Cotton & Wilkinson. Not just chemistry Ph.D.s, but biologists, engineers, etc.

We really do have a fair amount of "human interest" in terms of the history and applications/economics discussion (and even pictures). And I put the structural chemistry of the compounds at the end to make the parts that are more accesible come first. That said, there really is a lot of good content here, even for a hardcore working chemist, chem engineer to get an overview and to be pointed to the best references if he wants to dive deeper.

The ideal is to transmit as much info as possible as painlessly as possible. I disagree both with the anti technical types that just hate these kinds of articles (they have huge hit count, thye really are important to readers in industry and school) AND with the technical types that say it's impossible to convey information without using difficult language or the clipped prose and terms of a specialty journal.

FAC

I would really get it as perfect as you can get it before dumping it on FAC again. You've been up that hill a couple times and you need a step change, not just to tie up more reviewer time. This is not to say that reviewers are always reasonable or you should agree with everything they want. But at a minimum, I think it's fair to ask that you (or "we", whoever) have rigoruosly fact-checked the article and done all the obvious nitpicking ref/link format stuff.

Given my heavy involvment in article, advise you to ask for SG to recuse from any involvement with the piece (as delegate or reviewer). Ideally get Ucucha to shepard it (they will probably get all aflutter if you ask for a specific delegate, but they are too easily kerfluttered. Buncha schoolgirls, the men included, but I digress). Ucu has about the right level of knowledge (Sasata would be good too were he a delegate) in terms of being generally technically competent, but not a specialist or even a chemist. And Uca will be fair (both in not playing games to spike something and in not being some special buddy or the like).

The benefits of the FA process would be some intelligent people looking at it, both for nits and for substance. (I would even consider gettting a specialist to look the thing over, could be outside the FA process though, given timing and the like). Also, I would love you to have the shiny token given all your work. Another benefit is the article has some pseudo-protection from cruft addition (at least easier to revert or deal with an edit warrior) because of its recognized status.

So...I don't want to be TOO negative. You MIGHT get some great help and have a good experience. I just can't personally bother with the place given it's anti-democratic attitude and cliqui-ness. And it's not like the people there are gods, I've seen better in academia and companies and real magazines...I mean they work hard, but still...it's an at least 8-year Ph.D. EE student (who seems like a wargamer who just wants a fancy Internet title)...and a well...overly bossy housewife. Not Daniel Boorstin or Linus Pauling...or even Larry Sanger.

TCO (Reviews needed) 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually pulled the Partington ref

I had the Wiki Reference desk get it for me and they sent me a pdf. Based on looking at it, I really trust Partington more (had a detailed examination and discussion of the documents). Let me know if you want it.

I'd love to get it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Da! Can you turn on your option to recieve emails from users in your preferences?

P.s. I see you being so strict and such...kudos! I will use that as motivation for me to do same. Sometimes, I get a little sleezey, but will try to follow your good example! TCO (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Turned them on. (Oh, don't exaggerate :) Nothing unusual, I mean, it's not just me so strict...just seems so)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sent you an email.

It's fine, you are doing it the way we need to do it. We will get through this thing. I have a little more to do on the market size stuff and then on agrichemicals/pharma that is content related. But then I can turn to on the fact checking. I feel really good that we will prevail after seeing your work so far! And we will have confidence to stand behind the work product.

TCO (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Keeping energy up, but not getting burned out...

I think we will naturally figure out the best way to do this. I want to keep motion...so we don't peter out. But also, I don't want either of us to burn out. This is a marathon. Need to consistently put some miles behind us (not burn out with a sprint, not stop running).

I thought we would work on different sections, but it may be better if we just work on same one (or I follow you). Like I could do History next. That way we have more concentration, less balls in the air. I still have a couple of sections of content that are bugging me. the market size stuff you tossed at me and then the drug/agri section. I'm just not working that fast, so will take me at least a couple days. I have to "get my head around things" (to understand the totality) in order to write integrated content. I do promise to follow up on history, though!

Oh...and don't worry about me pushing you...I feel more like you push me!  ;-)

(see easy for me to write lots of chat words, but much more struggle to do those pesky references or understand a whole section with a lot of different sources...but we will get there...)

TCO (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We will go on. I personally think I'm driving at about 70 mph (The "cruise speed." Called so as thought to be the best composition of speed itself and fuel consummation for most cars (big trucks not in account)), sometimes slower. Not needing many fuel. I feel I can faster, but that requires too much resources. So I'm fine. Especially with that I just can't drive daily, but you know why. When I can, I do. I won't burn out. Even am ready if you do (wish so not, though).

I don't get the idea. You'll recheck my checkings? If yes, do you need the sources (not to look yourself)? If not, what do you want and is it then very different from the current layout? Really don't understand you.

No prob. Get the speed you're comfortable with. You're still great from my point of view.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to recheck what you checked. I just thought you asked for help with getting some of the references or called out issues and stuff. In any case, I want to rewrite the pharma section (decent content, but too many chemical names now, and lacks a clear org). Am looking at refs and such. Once that is done, I will work on fact checking.TCO (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Yes, if possible. In no hurry, though--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hi. Would you like to sign up for the WikiCup? You would definitely get a lot of points (and perhaps be the first member of WP:ELEM to win or at least get to the finals). Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. The guys there work for amount. Not my philosophy. Not to say that my last year achievements are under those some pick in a month. I'm flattered by the invitation, though--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for doing Hounshell!

I would have gotten it, but it was low on my priorities. (have hard copy at home but was not at home.)

The drugs are interesting. I will put in a research request to get some articles (I should just figure out some way to buy a journal access thingie). The one review that I could find that was online though makes it much more clear than how our section is written (uses common brand names, etc.) BTW, the number one drug as of 2008 had fluorine in it!!! Lipitor (probably up there last few years as well, but went off patent in late 2011, so will drop in $$ now).

TCO (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I went through history

I went through History refs. Lot where I could not see them, but I checked all I could. Kind of a helpful excersize (for me at least) to better have a handle on the actual content. I'll put a request in for the missing refs and the French language check.

We may end up with a monster list of refs at the end of this exercise, but I can go to the library and try to pound most of them out. Even getting only about 50% checked, think it is useful. I feel hopeful and more confident, now...TCO (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

new adds and fact checking

Hey, hope I did not steal something that you wanted to spend time on by putting in some of that metamaterial and trifluoride info. I hope that I am not dominating the enterprise too much. BTW, it's highly helpful when you plow through a section for fact checking first...as that sort of task intimidates me, find following easier.

Anyhoo. Just trying to reach out. If this comes across as directive or you are not enjoying things (or am I stealing the toy too much), just speak out as I can back off. First and foremost, this is your article. I actually value your enjoyment and learning more than the end product! (I just tend to pitch in at times...;-))

TCO (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Before the direct response, I just want to say that everything you type in here is read and reaches the mind. I don't watchlist myself; as such, I often begin to reply, the orange bar is gone, then open something else... and (since I don't typically spend much time in here) the computer is shut down before I realize I forgot to reply. I don't just sometimes have enough time (and memory) to check the watchlist edits, etc., etc. to come back and reply. I'm not taking off the responsibility, just explaining.

(Trying to summarize it all) The active phase of learning things is behind for me. It's never totally over, but... when I compare myself as of now and a year ago (approximately when I entered Fluorine), there is a huge difference. I was good at chemistry in school. But some things (even basics) were a real surprise. I only had three years of it in school. Like fluorides of metals can actually be not ionic. Wow! A year ago. Things change, I'm better. Way from perfect, though. My head is full of economy, not chemistry. Mostly. Actually, I was leading to the fact I'm not against any amount of work you do. You have more time than me (hate already to refer to it, sorry, I understand if you too), so it's better for the article. You've probably done it better than I would if I were to. (I'm saying by this, "You've done it great. Keep it up!") That's how to play football (I mean "soccer," but this probably applies to American football as well...I just hardly imagine what it is). In a team. If he can score, pass the ball to him. Which I do.

And I don't feel like a baby who has just been stolen a candy (not like saying, "I ain't no baby!", just an easy analogy to get). Some would complain on that. Some wouldn't, but rather of shyness and/or politeness, than actually. You're doing great. That's all I need. Also, I already don't find the article "mine." Am honestly sure that your share has overtaken that of mine. I have nothing against. Troo. Do you remember when I said I don't tend to "own" Wiki articles? This was true, and still is. I mean, some do some edits that make my heart bleed (not vandalism, real edits). I didn't undo them, 'cause, well, the thing is for everyone ("I'll undo 'em later when you don't mind, hehehe"). You don't. And that's enough. All I ask of. I do something to improve it. You do something to improve it. We're both nice, then. (I was taught that if you're helpful, you're good, no matter how if it's sufficient.) Also, your activity is a thing to whip me up as well. So just keep on. Both hands in the air. Honestly.

I thought that I was the one to apologize for being too slow, not you for being so fast. Real life is a mess. Has become so just a few days ago. I just need some time to fix it up...just don't expect much for now. I'll be in soon, will try to watch the thing from the cell now (which I rarely did before), and maybe actually edit. It's a real force majeure. Will try to come back as soon as possible for active editing. Remember I'll watch your messages, etc. and reply whenever possible.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Real life is what matters. I may need to slow down as well. No worries. Good luck with what matters...real life!TCO (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Isotopes

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Nicholasb07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nicholasb07 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Nicholasb07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nicholasb07 (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

may be a little scarce

Have some stuff going on IRL. Very positive for me, need to concentrate on it.TCO (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Order the noble gases however you like man. You will be getting your wish. I have some work, I need to concentrate on.TCO (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Take all the time you need. I'm glad to know you're getting something real good. Just do whatever you want. I'm holding hands for you. Use the moment. You deserve it!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Astatine (GOCE request)

Hello. An editor appears to have moved your request for a copy edit of Astatine from the GOCE general requests page to our requests for articles aiming for FAC page. As a GA that could well try FAC, it is welcome there, but this is actually up to you. It might or might not be better there: fewer inexperienced copy editors service the FAC-level requests, but turnover is slower. The editor who moved your request appears not to have asked you first, so I thought I should. Whichever you choose, you will not be pushed back in the queue. Best wishes, --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! I just checked up the history of the pre-FAC GOCE page. Since I added it (which I did in the mentioned page, not the general), it wasn't any moved (but there was an edit with a confusing summary). Also given lots of time on hands, the quality goes before time. Thanks for noting anyway, as it's very kind of you.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I see the confusing summary. I'm glad to know it's in the right place. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently copyediting the Astatine article (I'm not all the way through yet), and have left some "clarification needed" markers (clarify template) in the article some places where the chemistry/physics is unclear. I've also asked a couple of questions on the talk page. Allens (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part. Will give you all the answers there in a few mins.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I figured most other copyeditors would shy away from the chemistry/physics; while I'm not a chemist or a physicist (I'm a biologist), I'm at least more familiar with those areas than most. Allens (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I was too fast to say "a few mins." Just finished. And yes, you're right. Thought I'd wait a million years. That's why I asked for it months before I could release it to FAC (very busy lately). Again, thanks for doing it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote for a flagship article (WT:ELEM)

The rules have been changed to allow voting for more than one element. You can now vote for additional elements if you want to. If I misinterpreted your vote, please change the periodic table accordingly. Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine

Hello - I just read the upgraded fluorine article. It's fantastic. Many thanks to you and TCO for the hard work in polishing it to the state it is now. Jon C (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (Very pleasant, honestly). The thing would never be half that great without TCO. He's great.

Also, more's to come! (nothing important for reader, though, ref checks, polishes and alike, just a few facts may change/disappear/appear). BTW, you could say a word on the next FAC. I'd appreciate. It won't bet very soon, unluckily.

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Promethium

Hi. I have reviewed the article Promethium, promoting it to GA. See here. There is also an entry on the main talkpage listing potential future citations to incorporate into the article alongside relevant content. Cheers, ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Never got it that fast before. On the content: if you look closely, you may see that I was the one to add it. Some is already used. Some, I'd now prefer not to.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lawrencium

Can we have a final push to eliminate Start-class from the d-block? Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In theory, yes. But in practice, this has to wait if needs to be done by me. There is a thing that is of top priority for me: fluorine (not to say I gotta end the astatine CE). After that, I planned to take care of astatine, but since you're asking me, that can wait (fluorine can't because I feel obliged to do it). And, in fact, I want (and will; first steps already done) to re-write the whole thing; I won't just make it slightly better to make it a C-class (ratings are a formal thing, useful but formal, so I'm not chasing them, although support their existence and (when not over-)usage. Can't resolve it in a minute, so it'll wait. But if by the time fluorine is a FA none will have picked the thing up, I can take it. (Which, at best scenario, can happen in 3 months. But I think it'll take more. (I'm getting busier with the day)).

R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Good luck for the next fluorine FAC! Do lawrencium whenever you want to. (Alkali metal still needs a lot of work. I'm still trying to improve it. After that, I'll try working on alkaline earth metal.) Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both luck wishes and understanding :)

Go for'em! --R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Rg is now also a Start. :-( Alkali metal is unsteadily (i.e. at random times when I feel like working on it) improving. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Vsevolod Klechkowski

Hello. Now I have a question for you. I am interested in the Russian chemist Vsevolod Klechkovsky (or Klechkowski) because of his work on the (n+l) ordering rule for atomic orbital energies (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d etc.). This rule is called Madelung's rule in many English chemistry texts, but some French texts call it Klechkowski's rule (in French La règle de Klechkowski). Do Russian texts also call it Klechkowski's rule?

Also I notice that the Russian article about him is a little longer than the English or the French, so I wonder if there is more information in the Russian article which you could translate into the English article. Dirac66 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In short: yes. Don't read Russian chemistry/physics literature very often, but I've seen both "Klechkovskiy's rule" and "(n+l) atomic orbitals ordering rule" (or whatever using (n+l)). Never "Madelung's rule," and I am highly sure that no major scientific literature writing in Russian uses it.

Can't read French, here are the facts missing form the English article:

• Alma mater is Moscow agricultural academy (graduated in 1929). He had worked there since 1930, and became a professor in 1955; the next year, he became a VASKhNIL academician.
• During his work on isotope labeling in agricultural chemistry, he was one of the first to study plant nutrition using radioisotopes (received a Stalin prize for that 1952 along with his academy co-workers; Klechkovskiy was the head of Academy), and he invented a few devices for that. He was studying the behavior of heavy nuclei daughters in soils.
• Introduced the Klechovskiy's rule (1951).
• Was buried on Vagankovo Cemetery (among most prestigious in Moscow).

(Also: simple transliteration from Russian would be Klechkovskiy, which I use here; the -wski ending is derived from Polish) Nothing more important there--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the French article states that he introduced his rule in 1962 (and even references Klechkovskiy's own paper on the rule). Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks to both of you. I have inserted the information about the academy and the isotope work into the article, as well as the source for his rule from the French article (but originally from the Journal of Chemical Education article by Pan). Dirac66 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine

Fluorine is now the 438th longest page on Wikipedia, thanks to all the work you and TCO have done since November 2010. Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(BTW, the "Organic compounds" section needs more references.) Double sharp (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Wow. So long. Thanks God it still reads good. Such ratings are always "statisticians' craft," but this is an interesting note. (A good thing is that a significant part of it is made by refs).

The refs are up to come (well, not "up" maybe... some time later, but definitely)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but it seems to be the second longest WP:ELEM article (the longest is metalloid). Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've updated it again. Metalloid has now been cut drastically (with stuff being moved out into other articles), so now you are officially working on the longest WP:ELEM article. :-) Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Astatine

I've removed At from Template:Diatomicelements. Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's for the best now. Could you make it clear that none thinks astatine is simply missing and adds it "back"?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Naturally occurring fluorine (not fluoride)

Hi. :-) Talk:Fluorine/Archive 1#Elemental occurrence says that F₂ (g) occurs in nature, presumably in the reaction ThF₄ → RaF₂ + F₂ + α (since RaF₄ doesn't exist). Immediately after escaping, this fluorine immediately decomposes water vapour in the atmosphere and leaves behind benign concentrations of ozone as its signature. Is this true? (The OP gave an unspecified textbook as a source.) If so, do you think it should be added into the article? Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sounds believable. (At least the whole cycle, as read there, is easily imaginable). I had the idea some time before (before the archiving was introduced, I guess). Unluckily, I was unable to track any sources to prove on my own. (will add there no new info there before getting a source: it may be problematic to find it later) Whenever I'm back to Moscow, will try one more time. But if no proof is available shortly, it'll stand up in a to-do list. I gotta finish the ref check, find more refs (when I left, there were at least three subsections in a great need of refs, so as you can see, there are things needed to be done). Then (or when I'm too tired of haunting for refs again) I need to think if we need a few more cool facts (HF as a way to track fluorine in the outer space, the relative non-volatility of the same compound (F could be even less abundant, like other atmophiles), and what you just wrote, and who knows if I find another fact I actually never planed to find). (And then things I'm worse at and will need people for)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is immediately consumed, I don't think it makes sense to say that there is naturally occuring F2. what you have is a momentary leaving group. Really an intermediate.69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing it is. But I think noticing it's pretty short-lived and decomposes very fast should be enough. Not that we gotta go into details (not all fluorine escapes to the air, not all alphas oxidize fluorine)... I mean, two or around so sentences should be enough. But why not? Don't find?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to, I am fine with it. My nose says no, but it is really no big deal. 69.255.27.249 (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

proud of you...

Really admire your guts. 76.79.30.102 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man. Your praise is a reason to move on.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Graphics Lab reply

Hello, R8R. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Hello, R8R. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Barium

Hi R8R Gtrs Thanks for the work in the barium artile! I only have a question, why the use of barium as getter material disappeared? I know that the numbers of CRT for TV and computer monitors is decreasing, but it was the major application for metallic barium for a long time. Should I put it back in? --Stone (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for that. I didn't originally get the point of using barium in those TVs. I think I'll fix everything, although please go ahead if I make any (further) mistakes. Also, already noted that they are still popular in India and China (as Ullman told me...amazing book), although I haven't seen one for a few years already.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have a CRT as monitor and as TV at home!--Stone (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Astatine

Have you seen this? The Chemistry of Astatine by A. H. W. Aten, Jr. There's also one for polonium by K. W. Bagnall, which I'm using for polonium (my latest side project). Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks for pointing! I wanted (it was February or around so) to incorporate a few isotopes and production facts from there, added my browser's into the bookmarks list, but a few days later my computer crashed, so I had to re-install the whole system (thus losing very much). Let me know if you need any help with polonium.

I got sidetracked by polonium into clearing out the redlinks in Template:Polonium compounds and populating the category. :-) Double sharp (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the price thing is in one of the refs further down...

Look down to the second and third para. Maybe duplicate the appropriate ref (I know I read it...)64.134.168.97 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am so lazy. 64.134.168.97 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I know where to get the ref, even though haven't seen it. I'll add it, say whether it's plausible or not. We can always remove it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is pretty plausible. The substance is basically used in a monolayer. So a little bit goes a long way (in textiles). 64.134.168.97 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a little joke (did not expect it to live)

See "Listening to Prozac".

64.134.168.97 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it long ago, but each time I was gonna ask you weren't active. Got it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Alkali metal

I finally broke 100 KB on the article (now at 107 KB, even with the two periodic table graphics taken out into their own templates). The compounds section is finally filled up with info, but there's still a lot of work to do (including cleaning up all the "citation needed" tags, but two more sections still need to be filled in)... Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats...I guess? Sorry, I don't remember, I offered some help in past and now you're asking for it? If so, I really won't be able to help before August, sorry. Let me know then if you need something.

Took a quick look. Noticed a lot of fancy images and graphics. Not bad. More info around. Also not bad. You're moving in the right direction :) Keep on! (Don't like the superoxide image, though -- think of MO theory, bond order. Also, is it hopeless to get Rb and Cs flame color test pics?)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed the superoxide image for now (someone has complained about it at Talk:Superoxide as well).

Rb, Cs flame colour: a beautiful set, but we'll never get it. Double sharp (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's better without it.

Hmmm, yeah, sorry not to get it. Maybe you could contact the uploader (Cyberchemist), and he could share for Wiki purposes... Also, where did he get cesium from?

Again, the thing's getting better. I really begin to like it (and the easy language). Hope you'll get it through FAC featured one day--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

He says the Li is LiOH, Na is NaCl, K is KNO₃, Rb is Rb₂CO₃, and Cs is CsCl. Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref in Ununseptium

Hey, just letting you know that, even below the nav templates, there appears to be a ref. I saw you were working on this article, so I thought I would point this out. StringTheory¹¹ 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't notice it myself. However, it's not really likely I'll use it...--R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed heat table colours

I did a :%s/OrangeRed/Orange/g on the table - let me know if that looks OK to you! --Slashme (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Halogens

Given that you've been working on F and At for a long time, and have recently worked on Uus, what do you think about a halogen GT? ;-) (A Na GA would immediately give an alkali metal GT.) Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning to do sodium by the end of this year, so no need to worry about that. StringTheory¹¹ 01:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't say for sure. Halogens (the four stable) are real hard to write (if you want to get a real decent article). Interesting (very), but time-taking. Especially bio stuff I need to get in deep first. At and 117 are more like an accident-- I didn't hunt for them as for halogens-- and I have GAed a few non-halogens articles also. Let's say I've drawn a field of work for me in Wiki for now. I mean, not now (2012 maybe), but we'll see.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up Uus for you so that it's now a GA. :-) Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the favor.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 09:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table

Hey, if you have time, would you mind commenting on the periodic table PR? Your experience with fluorine would be really helpful. StringTheory¹¹ 01:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Really unable, sorry man. Will have a word sometime later, if you still want me to, though--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Mikhail Usanovich

Hello. I remember that you helped find information on V.M.Klechkowsky for his article. I am thinking now of another Russian (or Soviet?) inorganic chemist for whom perhaps you can provide information for English Wikipedia. He is Mikhail Usanovich, who is mentioned in Acid-base reaction#Usanovich definition. I went to the Russian article and found a link to the article ru:Усанович, Михаил Ильич, although I cannot read it. Perhaps you could translate this as a new article for the English Wikipedia? Dirac66 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm currently unable to do any work in Wiki. However, if it can wait for about two weeks, then I'll help--R8R Gtrs (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. There's no hurry. Dirac66 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just read the man's story (PDF link in ru.wiki). No idea of trying something better than simply a translated stub (which I will provide In a few days, hopefully tomorrow)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mikhail Usanovich -- the stub's ready.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. Further comment is on the article talk page. Dirac66 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

CrF6

Wait, CrF6 doesn't exist? What's going on with the Holleman and Wiberg ref, then? (Not that I want to put it back into the F article – it's not immediately relevant. But I'm wondering about it for the hexafluoride and chromium hexafluoride articles.) Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You maybe know that German Riedel is using my trust. http://144.206.159.178/ft/243/588116/14862785.pdf -- you had seen the document before. Hope I could ask you to go and fix the articles?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixing. Mostly it's just correcting "18" to "17" throughout. I RDR'd the CrF6 article back to the main one and added a note about CrF6 being a mistaken identification of CrF5. BTW, the slow-motion edit war at File:Hexafluorides.svg has started again. Now PoF6 is being removed. So does it exist either? Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything's possible. I'd rather say yes, because we need a paper proving the discovery wrong otherwise. A reprint in a chem-summarizing book doesn't serve as good proof, however. But it's the latest thing I've seen on the matter. You can email the authors and ask them (emails on the first page of the paper). Can ask them on plutonium tetroxide, also.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Resource exchange

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Graphics Lab

Hello, R8R. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Roshan (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hg(III)

DMacks says on List of oxidation states of the elements the source (which you added to the Hg article here) doesn't say that the mercury oxyfluoride is Hg(III) (apparently it's Hg(II).) So, is it Hg(III)? Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the cover out. click the image There are two interesting molecules drawn on it, labeled OHgF and OHg^IIF. I decided therefore the first one was a O=Hg-F (hard to see actually). If the man already actually read the source, he's then right. Also, the abstract (as I just read) doesn't suppose Hg(III) either ("Ungepaarter Elektronenspin am Sauerstoffatom von OHgF deutet auf Quecksilber in der Oxidationsstufe +II hin," I know you know German as well). If I'm not right (which I think now)... my apologies and let's forget it. (I also remember somewhere recently read -O hadn't showed up as a ligand up to then... I wonder why they haven't mentioned this record in the abstract.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed Hg(III) from mercury (element) (the infobox, since DMacks removed it already on the main article) and list of oxidation states of the elements. Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R8R. You have new messages at Roshan220195's talk page.
Message added 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry, ma bad... Should have checked the link when I posted it. There shouldn't be a problem now... Roshan (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Roshan (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again.. Roshan (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And again... Roshan (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Forget the mail man, I'll take the request myself.. I borrowed my friend's pc :) Roshan (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh, help me out a bit here. I converted the thing in black and white with a lot of squares to colour. First of all, I don't know how to title it. And second, what license do i upload it under?? Roshan (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)