EdwardsBot (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 04 February 2013: new section |
75.114.242.245 (talk) →Indef block: new section |
||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0456 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0456 --> |
||
== Indef block == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[WP:BANNING|community-banned]]''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for [[Wikipedia:Administrators|abuse of administrative privileges]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/75.114.242.245|75.114.242.245]] ([[User talk:75.114.242.245|talk]]) 00:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:45, 10 February 2013
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 1 (End Oct 2006)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 2 (End Dec 2006)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 3 (End Feb 2007)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 4 (End Oct 2007)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 5 (End Jan 2008)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 6 (End Apr 2008)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 7 (End Nov 2008)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 8 (End Jun 2009)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 9 (End Nov 2010)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 10 (End Apr 2011)
- User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 11 (End Dec 2012)
Is there a way we can expand the article beyond the 1,500 characters? it was ripped off of some contents and now it stays at 1,091 I guess. If this cannot be done, then the plausible way will be to close the DYK nom. I ask you because I am not the chemistry type and can't do it myself. — ΛΧΣ21 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have added some description of the dimeric structure, the article is now over 1500 characters. EdChem (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rifleman 82, do you think you could stop by the DYK template now that Ed's done his most welcome additions, and let us know whether the article works now? We can rule on things like length, but we can't tell whether it hangs together or if it might run afoul of some of the issues you mentioned. There is one issue that definitely needs to be addressed: the hook mentions "optical and semiconductor applications", but while "optical" is in the article and sourced, the word "semiconductor" never appears. We can either delete "semiconductor" from the hook, or add it with an inline source citation to the article. If you think retaining "semiconductor" is best (it does make for a more interesting hook) and can be referenced, then can I ask you to add it and its inline source citation? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look maybe later today or tomorrow morning. EdChem should be able to help too. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like EdChem made a bunch of edits the next day, but the semiconductor issue remains. I thought I'd check in again, though I'm guessing that this now needs to wait until after the holidays, which I hope are happy ones for you and yours. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I haven't managed to get everything done yet. In those edits I re-added the reference that was originally used for the superconductor comment, but have not had the chance to check what the paper says on that topic. Once I've added what I can find (and I've been surprised, there is more written about the compound that I had realised), I plan to look at some redrafting to make the article more concise and improve the flow - but it takes more effort than I am really able to give reliably. By way of explanation, holiday pressures and on-going health issues for me and my family are limiting my time and concentration. I could provide ALT hook(s) that are referenced if it would help, or try to get the superconductor and lede issues addressed within a couple of days. Again, I apologise, I realise the timing is way beyond what was considered reasonable back when I was active in DYK. EdChem (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ed, it's the holidays. Please, don't stress about this now. I'm sorry to hear about the health issues. We have a bit more flex in DYK these days—I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing, but there are significantly older articles than this one—so another several days would not be out of line, though it would be nice if we could wrap this by the end of the year. An interesting ALT hook that is fully referenced would indeed help, since we can recruit a reviewer with such a hook. Whenever you're ready is fine, and thank you so much for taking it on. Out of curiosity, Rifleman, do you think you'd be able to do the review once Ed's provided a new ALT hook? If so, I won't start trying to recruit another reviewer (who probably wouldn't know anything about the subject). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I haven't managed to get everything done yet. In those edits I re-added the reference that was originally used for the superconductor comment, but have not had the chance to check what the paper says on that topic. Once I've added what I can find (and I've been surprised, there is more written about the compound that I had realised), I plan to look at some redrafting to make the article more concise and improve the flow - but it takes more effort than I am really able to give reliably. By way of explanation, holiday pressures and on-going health issues for me and my family are limiting my time and concentration. I could provide ALT hook(s) that are referenced if it would help, or try to get the superconductor and lede issues addressed within a couple of days. Again, I apologise, I realise the timing is way beyond what was considered reasonable back when I was active in DYK. EdChem (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like EdChem made a bunch of edits the next day, but the semiconductor issue remains. I thought I'd check in again, though I'm guessing that this now needs to wait until after the holidays, which I hope are happy ones for you and yours. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look maybe later today or tomorrow morning. EdChem should be able to help too. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rifleman 82, do you think you could stop by the DYK template now that Ed's done his most welcome additions, and let us know whether the article works now? We can rule on things like length, but we can't tell whether it hangs together or if it might run afoul of some of the issues you mentioned. There is one issue that definitely needs to be addressed: the hook mentions "optical and semiconductor applications", but while "optical" is in the article and sourced, the word "semiconductor" never appears. We can either delete "semiconductor" from the hook, or add it with an inline source citation to the article. If you think retaining "semiconductor" is best (it does make for a more interesting hook) and can be referenced, then can I ask you to add it and its inline source citation? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If we're not in such a hurry, I'll be happy to help. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Poking my head in. An ALT hook or the superconductor material to support the current hook would be nice sometime soon if at all possible, with a review to follow. Thanks, everyone. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's probably more that could be said about the compound, but it is now DYK ready, I think, with the semiconductor mention referenced so I have skipped the ALT hook. Apologies that this got lost in my tasks. EdChem (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- EdChem, you got back to it much more quickly than I was hoping for; thank you very much. Rifleman 82, if you could do that review in the next few days, that would be wonderful. Many thanks in advance (and a few more in reserve when the day arrives). :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's probably more that could be said about the compound, but it is now DYK ready, I think, with the semiconductor mention referenced so I have skipped the ALT hook. Apologies that this got lost in my tasks. EdChem (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Rifleman, you said you'd "support" ALT4. What we need is someone willing to sign off on it: approve it with the appropriate icon. Since Graeme proposed it, he can't approve it; we need someone independent. If that's you—if you think the hook is accurate and something you believe should be approved—please stop by. If not, please let me know here so I can resume the search for a reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow the process seems really complicated. I gave it the tick. Let me know if it's not enough. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, a bit. Thank you very much. I've just moved your addition so it's in chronological order and at the bottom so no one thinks the "re-review" red arrow was added afterwards: with the tick last, they'll know it has been approved. I think we're finally done! Many thanks also to EdChem, for getting the article to the point that it could be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nickel sulfide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorph (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) 11:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
— ΛΧΣ21 05:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Acetonedicarboxylic acid
You have change the expression „decarboxylation“ and added „oxidation“. What’s the oxydation agent? It’s not the sulfuric acid, because there is no sulfur dioxid. If you look at the formula of the german patent, carbon monoxide is evolved. If you look at literature Org Synth, there is a warning „The reaction must be carried out in a good hood, since a large amount of carbon monoxide is liberated.“. best regards from organic chemist --Drdoht (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. You're right. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 January 2013
- Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat
- News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme
- WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy
- Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality
- Special report: Loss of an Internet genius
- Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012
- Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months
- Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 January 2013
- News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward
- WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics
- Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review
- Arbitration report: Doncram case continues
- Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Structure problem
Comment on File talk:Oxidation of furfural to furanone.png (image now on commons) for you... DMacks (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Your comment on WP:TAFIHA
Hello,
Regarding your comment at the Holding Area of the TAFI, I would like to clarify that the "To Do list" refers to the possible improvements for the given article. As the list currently stands, one of the editors has endorsed widening the scope of the article to include other kinds of salts etc...
Hope this clears whatever doubts you had. If not, feel free to contact me again on my Talk page.
Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 January 2013
- In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention
- Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics
- WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess
- Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests
- News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate
- Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012
- Arbitration report: Doncram continues
- Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Reverted your edit on Sodium cyclopentadienide
I just reverted your revert on sodium cyclopentadienide. I just uploaded my file to the commons. The views of the crystal structures would be a great way to show it.
Chembox edits
I couldn't help noticing your note to Edgar re changes made to chemboxes by people who shouldn't tinker with things they don't understand, or who are simply malicious. However, there is a very simple solution that, unfortunately, is going to be hard to implement: insist on literature (not some chemical company's datasheet) references for every datum. I confess that I've been lazy about this myself, and can correct it, but I'm not your problem. The only reason I'm writing at all is because I share your concern about the public's general lack of faith in the veracity of WP data.Xprofj (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
For various reasons, fiddling with the Chembox is popular among new editors. Some of them assume that the absence of (high quality?) data is a deficiency that needs to be corrected. We've had attempts at curation. Indeed, the digital identifiers and structures have been checked. ChemSpiderMan (talk · contribs) and Beetstra (talk · contribs) have been working hard in that regard. MSDS-style data tends to be poorly referenced, and people love to quibble over details. If I had my way, I'd make the MSDS-style section go away because it is so subjective. That's not going to happen, because of many years' precedent.
Thanks again for interest, and for your comment. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Dy1111
Here is my note to Dy1111, but he deleted it as vandalism, which indicates that this editor just does not want to discuss the problem or does not think there is one.
- The editor has the energy and the will to contribute but seems to have only a limited feel for chemistry. Dy11111 mostly contributes tangential or trivial information, some of which is misleading. He created 1-Fluorohexane. It is a real compound, but so what? Now look at the article. Is this the standard Dy11111 seeks? Most of us understand WP:NOTABILITY differently. It would have been nice for a new editor to ask before creating. In addition to adding trivia to Wikipedia, this editor can be annoying. He repeatedly reverted work of more experienced editors, seemingly out of spite. The history so far indicates that Dy11111 has a complicated attitude and a limited ability to contribute usefully. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
--Smokefoot (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 February 2013
- Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles
- News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance
- WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun
- Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes
- In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry
- Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Indef block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 75.114.242.245 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)