User talk:R8R/Archive 1

Ubu and Ubb

I put them Ubu and Ubb as they were the last you could enter before having to widen the table. If you look carefully, you'll see the periodic table says Compact periodic table, so it shouldn't be too wide. We should wait until the first period 8 element is discovered before we add another period to the table, as mav said. But I hope you don't feel bitten. 4 T C 07:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mn compounds

Re [1]. Mn has one of the widest ranges of oxidation states possible, so that arrangement might have been helpful. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fluorine

Hi there! It's been a while since I've edited any chemistry articles, but I would be happy to help you with fluorine. I left some feedback on your sandbox talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you! That was really useful. I would probably never look on several things you've pointed through they're important. I think it now fulfills all criteria you have given (except for the last one - more references). If possible, please, check those, give some else things from that page to work on. I'm leaving for a week, and when I get back, I'll work harder on those. Since you review, I've added about 10 references, but please, point additional places that need more refs (I'm sure there are still many).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think I've done that all, even references. In fact, it's done since Monday. New comments? How far is that from, as you think, being ready? And what does that look like (I mean total quality and, if it's actually ready or close to that, approximate rate)? --R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say go for it! I see no reason why you shouldn't move this into article space. Be sure to leave a note on Talk:Fluorine to alert other editors of the change. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: flourine

I will try to do it although that I never did a thing like that before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine

The next time you plan to edit a long, mature article, check in with relevant project groups. I mean why check with users who have zero track record or are probably rusty on a fairly advanced topic (e.g. Ebe123?, Cryptic)? Well defined projects exist for the purpose of guiding editors, Like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. You can see that a lot of clean up has been done on the fluorine article, and more work is required. Thanks and good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine

Is the peer review of Fluorine done? ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 23:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

French Journal

You made the following addition to the fluorine article reference last = Ampere first = Par M. a translation would be last = Ampere first = from Mr. funny thing. I did the same for P. which is Pere or father.--Stone (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the notice! I guess, I should remove the whole first, which is actually "from Mr." replace it with actual scientist's name.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

..I would change it to last = Ampère first = A.-M. his name is André-Marie Ampère--Stone (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see reasons to abbreviate the name, but if you think it's necessary, go ahead!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not the slightest clue what the Manual of Style says about that, but during FAC there is somebody telling us why it has to be the way it should be.--Stone (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) gives a footnote with Smith, John and Elk, Anne rather than Smith, J. and Elk, A., (however, Author, A. also appears there and possibly makes the whole text useless leaving with without a common way allowing both) so maybe abbreviations are needed only to use name we can't find full names for (a very common practice in Russia is to use abbreviated name and partonym with full family in scientific works, such as Petrov, I.A. and it can be hard to find what I.A. is for). I haven't seen anyone saying so (and at what FAC?), but as soon as anyone does, I'll forward this to him. If he disproves me, I'll follow that, then.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! There will be a FAC someday! --Stone (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wadim Zudulin

Hi R8R,

If you have a look at his web page or any of his papers you will see he spells his name Wadim (though he does pronounce it Vadim). Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, my bad, sorry--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Radium

Shouldn't you be adding User:R8R Gtrs/Radium to your userpage? :-D (I also like working on articles the same way as you do...was working on User:Lanthanum-138/Alkali metal.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd pick it up for a hard work, but I've only rewritten lead and the first section; I am not currently working on it and have no plans to do so. By the way, about Alkali metal... even through the PR is over, you can still work on the article, on shown points or more--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll try radium out after alkali metal and curium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Go for them!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine

Hi R8R Gtrs, I've read your note on my talkpage. I'm not sure that "addicted" is the right word - I don't particularly like FAC as a process which is why I tend to keep away from it. Since the PR is closed and you've opened a FAC I will respond on the relevant FAC page and that may take a few days. Pyrotec (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on that, but I think the article titles should stay as published. Wait for resolution of that at FAC. Materialscientist (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Most (especially journal articles titles) are usually written in ALL CAPS, which, during decaption, become Something Like That, Seriously. I am not 100% sure, too, but possibly that's better now (maybe not, through). Anyway, when I get a link without Every Word Beginning With a Capital Letter, I won't do it. For other purposed I'm pretty sure it's always ALL CAPS--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I forgot to add yesterday - FAC usually asks the author to waste lots of time in useless formatting, forth and back. Resist it where possible :-). Factual and prose comments are the priority. Materialscientist (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I replied to your comment about the F gaseous image, see here. :-) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Group 3 element

You do realise that the group 3 element topic would have to be Sc/Y/Ln/An to keep neutral, not Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, no? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to. The lead is written quite neutral, mentioning both alternatives and treating them as equal. (feel free to correct me if it's not) Sections that argue about group characteristics will include information on both alternatives, La/Ac and Lu/Lr, at least Group borders and Characteristics. About other sections, when nothing good is lead from inclusion of 6/30 elements, it focuses on Sc/Y/Lu/Lr variant. There's a note to the right that it's only lead from a chemistry (or physics?) principle and is not absolute. I'll move it to the lead...maybe.

Tl;dr

Just think, treating element all the 30 elements is a nonsense, so it focuses on two variants, which are way more common than others. Even treating both isn't very comfortable, so I've taken the one that is lead from a very general principle, not calculations or opinions. Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I meant using scandium, yttrium, lanthanide, actinide. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Articles). Oh, of course that would definitely be slightly easier ;-), but that's not really the point, it's just that it seems to have been decided there. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should go as wide as 30 elements. Neither do I about the "the agreement" - even through it's written so there, it's not a consensus... None else has just said anything. And easiness should among the priorities, right? However, you may wish to bring the talk to WT:ELEM... But I myself see this way the best, at least currently--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean put the 30 elements in there! :-) I just meant the articles for lanthanide and actinide, not the articles for the individual lanthanides and actinides. Regardless, think I'll bring to talk. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what to do. (And yes, I tried. More details in the page history and my talk page.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Cadmium

I think you'll have to work on that one now...Tarret (again!) GAN'd it. (I'm not sure how called for that was...) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the activity of fluorine FAC (which moved to the talk page), on which I'm currently working. Anyway, thanks! I'll try to find some time for it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

mea culpa

Sorry...I was going to reference it to the CRC (which references to Blondel anyhow, but an earlier paper of his). There is a little bit of one step backwards to support two steps forward going on.

P.s. I take back all the great comments I had about Russian chemists (who have always blown me away with how they knew math and physics even when doing highly applied work), since I find out that you are an economist. Well, Marx was German anyhow. TCO (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind about that ref, it's OK.

Sorry if that touched you... Even having this interest, "scientist" doesn't seem to be a respected, better-paid or benefiting in some other case job than most in Russia. That was why I made the choice; I never claimed myself to be a chemist, did I? BTW, if the bracketed phrase was about me, then sorry again, I'm just trying to get closer to my best (and please specify, in order to improve myself). Anyway, I only hope this doesn't blow away your warming feelings about the subject and wishing to help to promote it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We will get it done, babe.TCO (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP Elements in the Signpost

Thank you for participating in the interview. The overwhelming response shows the excitement and dedication of the members at WikiProject Elements. I had to trim some of the interview to make it a little more manageable and to reduce redundancy. The responses to the first question and the "anything else" question were used in writing introductions for each member. I also cut an unneeded question. Please take a look at the revised interview to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the tone or character of your response. Also check to make sure I've used the correct pronouns when referring to you. None of these changes are set in stone and we still have plenty of time until publication in which we can tweak things. Pictures and a sidebar will be added closer to the publication date. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Boron Group and Lawrencium

Hi, I just renembered that you put on the talk page for the boron group that you were wondering if start-classness depends on references and to take a look at lawrencium. Well, I checked the criteria for the start-class and it does not mention anything about the amount of treferences. Anyway, I also think that the article that I have been working on for quite a while on, the boron group, meets the c-class criteria. Additionally, I checked some other group articles that are C-class and they seem at least comparible to the article. Could you please check out the article and see which class it should be? I have seen that you have been the nominator and a big contributor to the article flourine, and I suppose you are very busy, but i would appreciate it very much if you had the time to check the article out. Thanks :) --Geo7777 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I've kept the eye on the article these days. Well, it's a certain C! But if you wish to, in the following days I may write some approximate things to be fixed before assessing as a B. By the way, I don't really like many our group/periods ratings, they seem too high for me (well, some). Anyway, if things about the article are interesting to you, just reply to me, and they'll appear on the page talk page in the upcoming week. You may also take a look on group 3 element, group 4 element, noble gas (B, GA and FA). Before I forget: add thallium uses. But keep in mind my fluorine FAC, and that I may be busy :) Cheers--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great if you could tell me some of the things that need to be fixed or added to further improve the article. I'll check the other articles you suggested to see, I think they will help. I will add thallium uses like you said and will continue improving the article. I wish you the best of luck on the fluorine FAC, they take a very long time compared to the GA's! Thanks :) --Geo7777 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate all of the work that you put into for pointing out the bad spots on the article. I fixed nearly all of them (the references were hard ;)) and I'm going for a peer review. Without you the article would still suck and it would have lots of mistakes that i would normally not have noticed. I'm really sorry if I sort of pushed you to do it against your will because you are really busy and still are determined to get group 3 elements up to GA status. Thanks again for all of your time spent on it. :)--Geo7777 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind :) This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so I help as I can. BTW, it's too early to say thanks, there are more I see on a second look. I'd help if I could, but I'm back for today and tomorrow, and that's it. See you in August and hope someone'll help you :) And a small advise: if you want to have correct spellings, get a browser with a dictionary that underlines words it doesn't know in the editable boxes. I'm using such one, Opera 11. Good luck!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

TCO coordination on "Fluorine"

1. I'll work on Occurrence. It's just that when I read the sources, I got the "story" of what the situation is much, much better. I think we can do a better job of describing it so that people understand it in a coherent picture. Reads too much like a set of facts and wikilinks.

2. I'm concerned by the couple fact or reference mistakes we've found so far. This is an old article and previous citations may not really support some of the content. This is the time to check them all. This isn't about fixing the couple I find in passing, but about really checking everything. (If we find one error, there are likely more.) It's not really time poorly spent either as usually it gives some deeper insight into the content...and then this comes out in article writing later on. If I were you, I'd print the thing out and just use a red pen and cross off each fn, to indicate checked the sourced (looked at the actual text of the source) and that it really applies and the info is correct. I bet we find a couple more small errors of fact or citations that are wrong article. Obviously, where you have inserted the material, this is simple and no need to re-check. But where it is old stuff, it might be wrong. (For stuff that someone else just recently put in, use your judgment as to how much you trust their level of care as to whether you need to check them, but take "ownership" of the article's accuracy.)

3. Kind of a general concern on this issue of fixing individual mistakes the reviewers point out, versus seeing one individual problem pointed out as meaning we need to check things generally. Like with the citation formatting. Once the reviewer finds a couple examples, it indicates a likely general concern, and you should check for more of the same, not expect him to find each one.

4. I think a header called "Inorganic compounds" would be great. I would probably keep subheaders within that given the amount of info. (But do what you want, don't want you to feel too much, that this is interference from the reviewer...I am just a fellow editor!) We can code the Table of Contents so the 4 bars divisisions don't show. Don't feel bad about the length of Compounds. It's deeper down in the article, easy to skip over, and provide we keep the subheaders, easy to see where stuff is. And there is not other article that describes fluorine compounds well (previous hatnote went to a category linker).

5. I still want to go through some other parts of the article as well (sorry). I have some health issues and can not work at my normal pace.

6. P.s. Some of my comments I write down are just notes for me on something to work on, or longer versions of edit summaries (where I plan to fix the problem, I bring up).

TCO (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll get it in July

Hey man, sorry about the article getting closed today.

You've been pretty quiet lately, so I hope you are not upset with all my reviewing or me jumping in and doing work. It is clearly a mass of article that you have compiled here.

We can get this thing through next time. Oxygen took two tries and look at it now.

Peace, TCO (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

I've been quite busy in the real life lately, and it looks like I'll get free in Sunday. It wasn't your fault; more than that, I'm thanking you, because your both comments and doings were very helpful. Very.

Checking the articles, I wasn't really able to contribute significantly due to the business surrounding. I'll then look at it, try to fix the remaining issues. In August, I'll be back for another FAC. Not July only because in early July I'm leaving Moscow to study higher math, and I have to visit my granddad, who'll have gone through a surgery by that time. In mid-August (approximately) I'll be ready.

Anyway, this gives me some time for other things in the rest of June along fluorine work. I'm only planning to get group 3 element to GA status; but I'll try that not to contract the amount of work for fluorine.

Thanks a lot again. In response for your great help, after fluorine receives the star, I may help you with indium, at any level of help asked; if even you wish, I can even make it my number 1 target. I have already written a little for it (it was in April), and I know the article.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

August sounds good. Gives time for more pretty pictures. Have fun with the math!TCO (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The collaboration on indium would be killer. I felt guilty again when I saw the comment on Mav's page. You should play on this, by getting work out of me.  ;) I will concentrate on F for now. Don't do good at thinking of more than one thing at a time. And within F, there are multiple things to do. I think you know what I am up to, but will try to use the article talk pages, so we collaborate. (I type a lot in there, just my style...see the page in Painted Turtle...but I do work as well...not just a critic.) Hope your grandfather's surgery goes well. TCO (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about using FAC talk page and keep fixing things from there and report there or maybe move it . Aside from that, I'll fix refs as well, but some maybe after all writing things are fixed (fixing prose when possible and adding remaining required content). Then other unfixed things. In fact, the first thing to be done for me is fixing current refs, when possible, as well as fixing writing. BTW, maybe call for help from Guild of Copyeditors some later? In fact, having taken a look on FAC talk, I see I'll be busy for it and maybe won't even be able to fix before July 1 — everything else related to Wiki goes to hell (temporarily). Please take a look on English and prose strength yourself, as a native speaker, at least by the way, when editing some section. And again, thanks for the help.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt is way better than a GOCE person and is lined up to help us. We are not yet ready for him though.

I'll transfer all the unresolved crits (were some on the front page, some not mine) to article talk. It will all get archived into the article talk archive, before we go to the next FA. Will work on them.

I think we need to go through somewhat similar process as "Oxygen" (which I'm very impressed by) did between its two reviews . I don't think we will be quite as spectactular or quite as long, but...some expansion and "glitz" needed (industry economics and geography and value chain, nonmetal halide compounds, halon and DWR applications, image quality). good thing is we've cut all the section to section duplication of content and any additions now are "meat". If it is too much, then we can do daughter articles, as they did, but I would not worry for now. Section headers allow pretty good navation, lead gives a summary, and length (if well done) will basically be more a positive than a negative with reviewers and readers.

Take care of your personal stuff. Mid-August for return to FA makes sense. Keep after me and protect your IF7 and watch for ourines creeping in!  ;)

TCO (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

fluorine

I need to concentrate on some off Wiki things. Think I've shared my advice enough. Good luck with it. Make it shine!TCO (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, good luck with it! I'll try to fix as much as I can.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Haven't done any work with it yet. Been helping other articles in FAC ("Manhattan Project" and "A330"). Little under the weather, too.TCO (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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: [2] 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)