User talk:RustyOldShip

Prosulfocarb, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jdcomix (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RustyOldShip, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Always happy to see new editors contributing to the chemistry articles:) Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I echo DMacks welcome. It is great to see someone else writing about herbicides. You may not be aware that there is a list of herbicides which may give you some ideas for new articles. In many cases, there is an existing link to Wikidata for the compounds which don't have articles on the English Wikipedia. That's a fast way to check if they have one in another language or, if not, to pick up their Pubchem and other IDs. You will also find links on the list page to reliable sources like the Pesticide Properties Database (e.g. for Prosulfocarb). In some people's opinion, which I agree with, that's a much better source for physical property data than chemicalbook.com: see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408#chemicalbook.com. Don't hesitate to contact me if you ever need advice. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have mainly been doing pesticides I worked to manufacture. That's a good handbook. At least for prosulfocarb, having worked with it I can tell they weren't not far off. (Annoyingly I cannot cite myself to say "it's dark, deep purple almost", maybe it's just that I saw it in tons not test-tubes). PPDB confirms (+- a little) what I cited from chembook but I'll use it in future. Is it often that there's much to gain by cross-comparing other languages wiki? I had assumed English to be predominant but the German and Dutch prosulfocarb articles are about on the level of the one I made, but much older and cover different topics.

Trifluralin I at least kept a sample to photograph. It's a little odd seeing the crystals (dried slowly in an IBC) being red and the chembox saying yellow. Yet having spilled it over things, it becomes yellow if splashings harden. Differences in crystal size?

Regards,

decade-dormant account RustyOldShip (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never worked on large scales, only in research with my whole career at Jealott's Hill. The PPDB gets most of its information from formal registration documents, which I assume are themselves based on highly purified material made as reference samples by the originator. Our MOS:CHEM suggests that if you want to include synthesis details you should base them on the first published synthesis, which is often a patent, but that it is sensible to include the manufacturing route as well if that's also published.

I find that the German Wikipedia sometimes has articles we don't but tends to allow a very boiler-plate style that doesn't amount to more than repeating what's in basic sources like Pubchem. I don't use it, preferring to work from scratch. See my userpage for some of the articles I've produced. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

For your image, File:Diephensocksurine.jpg it has a background as if you drew this on recycled paper. It maybe a copyright infringement, but in any case better off without it. How you avoid copying this back of page stuff is to put a black sheet behind the page you are scanning or reproducing, as black writing on black will not show. The contrast adjustment can have this pale grey just showing as white. As to the content of the image, you have inconsistent benzene rings, fairly roughly drawn letters, and a stray line at top right. I think it is better to leave these diagrams to people that use chemical structure drawing software. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme,

I slapped that together intentionally badly because I was annoyed at the people with chemical structure drawing software who replace it no matter the quality. If I do it properly, e.g. the handdrawn Chlornidine diagram. The rest of the article, for that matter, is also slapdash and crappy in several ways, though all information is accurate and sourced. I have been bothered because I write articles (I would like to think) with decent quality main text, and though plenty of people edit, I have very rarely seen edits that have added content, rather they nitpick capitalisation, (though usually correctly), or wording, or 'correct' British spelling, or flag issues without any attempt to fix, such as plastering [citation needed] even on things which already had good citations. I wish I saw edits like "i found blabla study (2017), saying etcetera". I was then annoyed that a diagram got replaced twice (and even called wrong? It's the same as far as I can see but with expanded NO2 and HN2 groups) with what is to me, an uglier and less informative picture. Dinitramine.

Usually when I draw diagrams I measure it out with a ruler, scan in monochrome and edit the image with Paint and Paint.net to remove any other marks/dirt, tidy it and label atoms with computer text. RustyOldShip (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HRAC classification, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Reconrabbit 18:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This acceptance notice was sent to DMacks, but I was advised to let you know at your own talk page since you did a lot of the work improving it. Thanks! Reconrabbit 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RustyOldShip. I noticed you recently created karsil, for which many thanks. However, in doing so you used guidechem.com as a source for the physical propertied. There was an earlier discussion now at WT:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2023#What do we think about Guidechem.com citations? where our conclusion was to deprecate that source and remove all references to it. Can you find a better citation for the properties? I'm aware that there is no entry in the PPDB, which I'd normally use for that sort of information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've switched those citations to echemi (they state the same info for these properties) and kept guidechem only as a redundant source for one property so there's still a link to it. RustyOldShip (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion, given guidechem seems to just parrot sources and maybe has some SEO nonsense going on, I deleted the redundant reference too. RustyOldShip (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Category 5 herbicides indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been making some herbicide articles lately (Karbutilate, Lenacil, Zuomihuanglong, etc). I have no method of picking articles to create. Should I create the examples in the table on HRAC classification instead? Reconrabbit 14:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the list of herbicides(or insecticides/other pesticides) for a more complete list. Plenty of existing articles lack much information too. (Just don't spend ages squeezing water from rocks, there is hardly an info on obscure herbicides like methalpropalin to find, despite the parcity of its page) RustyOldShip (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Benfluralin

added a link pointing to HRAC

Propanil

added a link pointing to MoA

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RustyOldShip! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to mark categories for deletion?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Group 19 herbicides indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Group 11 herbicides indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Group 33 herbicides indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Group 30 herbicides indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Group 28 herbicides indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tetflupyrolimet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dinitramine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RustyOldShip. Thank you for your work on Difenzoquat. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]