User talk:Shootbamboo

This user may have left Wikipedia. Shootbamboo has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi Shootbamboo. Thank you for expanding the article Perfluorooctanoic acid. You seem to be working on that topic (as a scientist) for a while. In the section “Manufacture and uses” this review article might be cited. --Leyo 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Oddly enough, I ran into a reference earlier the day you sent the message. Thanks again -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“PFOA is used in the fabrication of grease-, water-, and stain-resistant carpets, clothes, and other materials, including the products StainMaster (carpet) and Gore-Tex (clothing).” Where do you have this information from? AFAIK, the sole current use of PFOA is as an emulsifier for the processing of fluoropolymers. However, the fluoropolymers are then used for the products described above. --Leyo 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking "fabrication" as in the "production" then I laughed when I saw how it could be misinterpreted. Basically I got information from the old version of this article and I reinserted it because I thought I was being too scientific and technical by removing trade names. Here's a link about carpet use. [1] -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the link PFOA is called an “unwanted byproduct”. So I think it is still misleading. --Leyo 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Bad reference. Found a better one. I boldly edited the section based upon it. I added the industry claims vs. a government scientist's misgivings. Sorry for the confusion. Thank you for communicating your concerns. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that you will notice it, I reply here. :-) You asked for my suggestions. Here you go (incl. questions):

1. AFAIK technical PFOA normally stands for a mixture of linear and branched isomers. This might be worth to be mentioned in the article.
2. Solubility in water in the chembox: Does it make sense to give them for both PFO and PFOA? I think it should be given for the sum of the acid and the complementary base.
3. What about including some concentration ranges in the “Global occurrence” section? If it gets longer it could be split up in “environmental occurrence” and “occurrence in humans” (or similar).
4. To avoid citing a single (primary) source for the increase in wastewater treatment plants, you could cite this study. (I know that there are several others, but the use of grab samples make most of them less reliable.)
5. I am not happy with the sentence “PFOA is used in the production of stain-resistant carpets …”.
6. Is the fact that residual PFOA is found in AFFF cited from Washburn et al.?

--Leyo 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo, thank you for your time in posting that. I am going to reply now, in a quick manner. But I will be leaving out detail, just to address your concerns in a timely manner. I might leave a couple unmentioned but I plan on being back soon to address them.

1. The article should address branched vs. linear. The best place to do that IMHO is in a synthesis section that shows ECF vs. other routes. I should work on creating that section too.
2. The primary source for the aerosol secondary article (cited in Global...) mentions it as a justifying mechanism to explain a possible increased volitalization over expected values, so I thought so, basically the author pointed it out as under-appreciated. Let me know if you still think it is unnecessary. I trust your judgment in this and I will remove it if you think it should be removed.
3. Concentrations in the global occurrence section is a good idea.
4. The single-primary source for the WWTP is really a secondary source because I only cited portions to the abstract where it was reviewing other publications, and not any original research.
5. The sentence that talks about the production of stain resistant carpets, you're right in that it has an odd ring to it, despite being verifiable. While it is still used to make Gore-Tex because Gore-Tex is PTFE based, (or at least easy to accept theoretically), it may not be used to produce stain resistant carpets anymore. But I have concluded this is a necessary evil of Wikipedia based on the principle of verifiability. Also, it would be very hard to prove, that nowhere in the world, is PFOA being used to produce stain-resistant carpets. It seems to have a controversial air to it, because of profit margins, which is why I included the extra detail on what has been said about PFOA in carpet production.
6. AFFF is a leftover from the article before I started working on it, haven't bothered to source it yet.

Ok maybe I hit everything in detail not sure. I'll check back later. Thanks a ton. -Shootbamboo (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, some short comments:

2. I currently don't have access to the article (Yamashita et al.?), but I think the values given in the chembox cannot be understood by most readers without any explanation. Maybe it would be best to remove the solubility of the acid form (PFOA) from there and include it to the text (with a short explanation).

4. I could have written it differently: In contrast to several other articles, this article is a reliable reference for the fate in WWTPs and the contribution of the wastewater pathway to the environmental occurrence (in one catchment basin).

5. I think the sentence should be reformulated like this or in a similar manner (my wording might not be good): “PFOA is used in the production of PTFE fluoropolymers that is are applied to carpets in order to make them stain-resistant.”

6. A possible reference to cite could be the Industrial Fire Journal Article - June 2007 (3rd page, top right), but you might find better ones.

--Leyo 00:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. deleted - it was McMurdo doi:10.1021/es7032026.

4. ah, I understand, well feel free to add that if you'd like. i probably won't make it a priority at this moment. (i feel like i should work on the other things i mentioned above first)

5. problem is, i've never seen any source that talks of PTFE (Gore-Tex?) textiles for carpeting, the article might be talking about the acid form use of PFOA to form fluoroacrylic esters, or whatever suspected use the EPA scientist was getting at, or another, it is vague.

6. thanks, I think the content is found in Prevedouros.

Thanks again! -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. See page 46. But I corrected my sentence above anyway as it probably is too specific. --Leyo 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. This source summarizes for me the complexity (and uncertainty) of the issue[2] and makes me resistant to modify the sentence. I do have the Norwegian pub as an external link - although I didn't absorb it all obviously (thanks for pointing out the PTFE on wool that was interesting). Plus I've been killing time elsewhere. Basically, I'm not convinced that PFOA is not used as a reactive intermediate for the production of fluoroacrylic esters to covalently bond carpet itself. I guess you find the sentence misleading? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found this new thesis by accident that might interesting for your work on PFCs (if you didn't know it already). --Leyo 20:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, haven't seen that one, thanks. A much much belated thank you for the link. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are pouring so much editing energy into this article, so I worry that your effort is on-target. Wikipedia, as I understand it, has no aspirations to evolve into a technical review journal (ES&T, etc), and I think that numerous references are less desirable (at least to me and some others) than a fewer general ones. I underatand that you probably feel that many specialized references are "needed" because the theme (persistence of PFOA) is fairly topical, thus the overviews are just not available. And you might be right, partially. Also the numerous references raises the question of balance (NPOV) in a way: doubtless many papers have been written on the production, processing, and benefits of PFOA, yet this scholarship goes uncited in the current article, which focuses on bioaccummulation and potential tox issues. Just some thoughts to consider as you organize this nice article. I'll check back later to hear your views on my comments, which are intended to be constructive.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I have struggled with this issue myself (pouring in so much energy into finding/citing sources and writing them in coherently). But, I am convinced my effort is on-target. I even checked Wikipedia today to quench my own doubt, and it says "Each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and thus is worthy of inclusion. A topic is deemed encyclopedic if it is "notable"[38] in the Wikipedia jargon; i.e., if it has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources (i.e., mainstream media or major academic journals) that are independent of the subject of the topic." I ask you to compare Wikipedia's view of itself, to my recent PFOA discussion post. Juxtaposed, those two confirm in my mind that tremendous energy has been necessary (and remains necessary) in regards to the PFOA page. If a journalist from a major national paper, the LA Times, gets so much wrong scientifically about PFOA, how can we expect the Governor of California to make informed and rational decisions about SB 1313, which could ban PFOA in food packaging (in concentrations >10 ppb)? Which is before Gov. Schwarzenegger now with groups pressing him to veto?[3] (If it has not been passed or vetoed since the 2nd of September).

I agree that my numerous edits invariably rasies the question of "is NPOV maintained?". I am aware of this issue. I also know that Wikipedia openly invites those who have specific knowledge on subjects to be editors. (But I disagree that more references necessarily leads to an imbalance in NPOV, as your sentence implies to me). As for bioaccumulation, I believe I have only attenuated overly strong general statements (at least in sentences that directly use the word), as for toxicology, I haven't even scratched the surface (not to be confused with me supporting alarmist views). I haven't mentioned the peroxisome proliferation capability of PFOA (let alone the mechanism) and its potential relevance to humans (which is considered less than rats and mice). I haven't cited recent evidence of an estrogenic mechanism of hepatocarcinogenesis in rainbow trout (potentially more relevant to humans) which complicates the toxicological assumptions made within EPA assesments. I haven't cited results of epidemological surveys of occupationally exposed workers (with much higher exposure than the public). I have only cited the bare bones basis for the toxicological end points that served as the EPA's request to the SAB for its review of the draft risk assessment (see citation for "likely to be carcinogenic"), that, when I came to this page, still needed a citation, I couldn't find one from February 2006 so I cited the publication itself (EPA SAB document). I haven't mentioned anything about the Actions of the State of California. Personally, I don't know if SB 1313 should be passed or vetoed. But what I do know is that many more topics are notable, that are not yet cited, and I am working to get there in as a balanced fashion, as I am capable, with my own limited knowledge and biases.

And after re-reading your thoughts, I'd like to point out that I was working on citing, quantifying, and describing the excellent surfactant properties of PFOA (as you've probably noticed by now) while you were probably typing out your thoughts. As it relates to your interest in Chemistry, I think you would enjoy the second page of the Supplemental Information to the 2006 Prevedouros article - "Sources, Fate, and Transport of Perfluorocarboxylates" because it has equations for all 4 PFOA industrial synthesis routes. I think a graph with these equations would look great in "Manufacture and Uses". Feel free to ask me about potential sources to cite if you are running into difficulties. I may be able to assist you. I am not an "expert", but I do have specific knowledge on PFOA and I try to understand the breadth of the scientific literature and its "notable" impacts. I think the article looks nice myself, and I would like to see it upgraded in its status. And issues of neutrality removed. If you could help me on this path I would appreciate it. Thanks again. Shootbamboo (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I don't doubt your good intentions.

• I admit to have previously tried to argue with editors like you (on polybrominated fire retardants, the antifluoridation groups, vitamins, mineral supplements) that shorter, less referenced articles are more useful (easily read & digested) than "stamp-collecting." I realize taht shorter, less referenced articles are more difficult to construct and require discipline that is tricky in the libertarian world of Wikipedia. And my views are in the minority, editors that write about environmental hazards have proven deaf to my pleas. The unfortunate aspect, IMHO, is that the very goal that these editors seek - to educate the readership - is significantly defeated by the overwhelming detail that they inflict on the readership.
• Your references are all "notable." Of course they are (sarcasm). Just ask the authors or their PR dept. The way Wikipedia works, anything that is published is automatically notable. ChemAbstracts lists 29,000,000 references (I think), so there are a lot of notable articles out there. Some for every perspective conceivable.
• Balancing chem-tech factoids vs tox-health advice-risks: When I have commented to other environmentally driven editors about their lack of NPOV with technology, these editors have often responded by constructing some token section that is intended to demonstrate their chemically fluency and their balanced perspectives. But usually such "token sections" are technically pretty lame.

Oh well, as I said, I have tried unsuccessful to argue similar cases previously (violins playing sorrowful tune in the background). You are definitely in the majority. Looks like your having fun and the material is welcome to many, I am sure. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your response. i think you are partially right. i will keep your concerns in mind. i want to have an effective article. but, while we can have an abstract discussion on PFOA, others - such as the community involved with DuPont and C-8, or in various states, or have property that is exposed, or overly alarmist environmentalists, or potentially stressed retired fluorochemical workers (but i imagine the majority of them not to really care about all of the "fuss") - cannnot. this issue is a real, possible health threat-with evidence that human effects in the Western countries are being felt. "environmentally driven"? hmmm... I don't know, after all, I haven't started talking about PFOA being in bottlenose dolphins and polar bears yet. and your "notable" "point" is completely off base, I believe, because Wikipedia says that something is "notable" "if it has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources (i.e., mainstream media or major academic journals) that are independent of the subject of the topic", which PFOA, its properties, potential health consequences, government action, etc. has. this isn't about a multitude of scientific papers, it's a story that gets media attention, and is a subject of current research, legislative action, and media coverage.

i want to provide important facts while also giving stepping stools (to find a balance that is not over-cited). but, the story is so complex, with the nuances of PFOA's properties, then the forces of industry, academic research, environmental, legal, federal government, state government, and individual players, with profit margins, health, research, property values, and taxpayer dollars all on the line. how many citations do you believe it would take to put together a polished article on PFOA that is still "shorter and well referenced"? Shootbamboo (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You seem to be an expert on organofluorine compounds. What about writing an article on fluorotelomer alcohols. There is a short one in the German Wikipedia [4]. Best 212.41.90.183 (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, yes i think one is needed. any other organofluorine compounds that german wikipedia has that the english version does not? thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As your talk page is still on my watchlist and my mother tongue is (Swiss) German, I reply this question: Yes, there is an article on 8:2 Fluortelomeralkohol. Other articles would be in Kategorie:Organofluorverbindung. --Leyo 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Leyo, I just realized it was you and not the other person who responded thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. finally. :-) -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank for your interest in trying to improve some of Wikipedia's chemistry articles. However, I am concerned about some of your editing behavior. Wikipedia is founded on, and should operate on, a spirit of cooperation and consensus, but I feel that your attitude at times appears contrary to this - as if you are trying to control article content regardless of others' input. There are many chemists here that a depth of experience and knowledge. I think it would be wise for you to take some time to listen to them. Your prolific editing to shape articles to your liking while there is ongoing discussion borders at times has bordered on being disruptive. Please discuss first, then make edits based on consensus. Disruptive contributors can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and I would hate to see that happen in this case. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try and defuse the situation. I believe I am now on the receiving end of disruptive edits. I am going to try and calm the situation, your help would be appreciated. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are going to defuse the situation and one hour later go on to delete major content and merge templates from an article without consensus, plus the revert discussed in the section below. Great! If you really want to defuse things, just stop making major controversial edits to articles without reaching a consensus first. If you can't tell whether an edit will be controversial or not, it is better to err in the side of caution and not make it at all. If you still make the doubtful edit and it is reverted, don't revert again but discuss. If you want to gain some "reputation points", try adding some useful article content for a change. For example, the C-F bond article needs sections on hybridization (Bent's rule), molecular orbital aspects (hyperconjugation, gauche effect), and the bent bonding model. Of course, writing those sections may require some specialized chemistry knowledge. I can recommend some books and articles if you are interested. --Itub (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I think your negative smear campaign has gone far enough. I have typed out what I think is going on, but I am not going to post it for now, because I want to assume good faith, (and I also responded below). -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is a very useful guideline. When someone reverts something you do, you shouldn't revert it again but discuss it. I'm thinking specifically about this revert of yours. According to the guideline, the onus is on you to explain how your edit improves the article instead of simply reverting again (the latter approach is the way edit wars get started). But well, to save time I'll say why I think your edit was not constructive:

• You left an extremely flimsy lead; two short sentences long. The lead should actually have some "substance" and be a summary of the entire article (admittedly, it already failed the second point before your help)
• You over-sectioned the article by creating flimsy two-sentence sections. Such small sections can usually just be merged into the lead, unless you are actually expanding the section by adding useful content rather than simply chopping the lead into small pieces.
• You introduced an inaccuracy, or at least an unjustifiable vagueness, by turning "the strength of the carbon-fluorine bond is also stronger than the carbon-hydrogen bond" into "The strong carbon-hydrogen bond in methane (CH4) is 104.9 kcal/mol". Who says the bond is "strong"? That is meaningless; the point was to compare the two bonds and say which is stronger.
• Another inaccuracy is the use of the superlative "the strongest bond in organic chemistry". The most one could say is that it is generally the strongest single bond between formally neutral atoms. You have to be extremely careful with superlatives in chemistry. There is nearly always an exception.

Yo make things even worse, your revert was non-selective. Note that when I "reverted" your changes I left in the changes I agreed with (the deletion of the examples). But you also reverted trivial housekeeping changes I did, which I hope are not under dispute (the categorization of the article). --Itub (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub, the policy (thanks finally for linking as I am a new editor) you enshrined in your political attack ad (which most of the content belongs at the C-F bond page) would have been useful a long time ago. I have openly admitted I am new to Wikipedia on multiple occasions, and asked for policy openly before! But the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy generally come conveniently late from you. I applied this dispute template on November 2 [5] which turned out to be the incorrect template and you removed it on November 4[6], and I asked why it was the wrong template on November 5 on the talk page here and again on November 8 with this edit [7] when I reapplied the wrong template because I never got a response from you! Finally, you responded to me in a condescending manner on November 8 on the talk page here. It appears you want to keep me in the dark with policy, until you can conveniently demonize me. I get the impression you only yank out policy, not as a means to teach, guide, and lead me in my edits (as I am a new editor), but as a way to attack me. If it is possible for you halt your antagonism towards my editing at this point, I would appreciate it if you could please take a more productive, positive, pro-active leadership role as you have more experience than me. I moved this content to the carbon-fluorine bond talk page, where it belongs, curiously enough. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are right. I have bitten you, and for that I apologize. I may have been misled because the confident way in which you conducted your bold edits and discussions gave me the impression that you were more familiar with Wikipedia than you actually were. In the interest of pro-actively pointing you toward relevant guidelines, here are a few that may be relevant to the articles we have been discussing. Lead section, naming convetions, layout, style guide for chemicals, merging. I assume you already know about core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research, and consensus, but I'll list them for completeness. I know these are many pages to read, but in most cases you can get a good idea of what they mean from the summary and a bit of skimming. Just knowing that they exist is a big help in case you have a question. --Itub (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I feel a measure of responsibility also, as I was very bold in my edits (by my own admittance) and I imagine I was exceedingly bold from other editors' perspective. So I apologize. And I appreciate you pointing out those things, and the detail you added to the organofluorine chemistry talk page (policy wise) about why the term organofluorine compounds would trump organofluorines, it was very well put. Thank you for your post here. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shootbamboo, thanks for your comment on my talk page, and also thanks for responding to people's concerns. Wikipedia can be quite a rough and tumble, and sometimes emotions can run high (even over quite minor issues), so it's best to try and keep a cool head. I suspect from your actions today that you can become a valued and respected part of our community. I certainly respect the fact that you try to base your arguments on reason, and to back them up with the literature.

If you can enable your email (if you're willing to receive emails from other Wikipedians), I can send you an email from David Lemal. I contacted him on Friday night (I know him a little) asking for clarification of his definition, and he replied this morning. With private emails I prefer to share these on a more personal level, rather than in the public domain of Wikipedia. I'd also ask that you keep the email from the public eye - not because it's particularly controversial, just to respect Lemal's privacy. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yes, that would be great. And thank you for responding to my concerns, it has helped me appreciate the diversity of opinion expressed here. I was thinking we should buy the man dinner after analyzing his words so much! I was even thinking of calling Dartmouth to see if I could get contact info for his opinion so I would enjoy seeing it and I will keep it private. Thanks again. rospekATgmail.com Thank you very much. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been enough to go to Special:Preferences and “Enable e-mail from other users”. If not done already, you will have to confirm your e-mail address first. --Leyo 17:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I could insert other things, such as how wonderful a surfactant PFOS is, and how wonderfully toxic perfluoroisobutylene is, but I haven't. You don't see the same problem I do? That the page is too heavily weighted to organofluorines instead of fluorine itself? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take a look at how the other element articles are done-- say nitrogen. We could have chosen to make them entirely about the free element, but instead these articles also include surveys of all the uses and roles of the element and its compounds in nature and technology. I wouldn't object if you split off a section explicitly on uses of elemental fluorine, as has been done in most of the other element articles, of course. And there probably should be a mention of PFOS in the fluorine article, given how widespread its use is, and how much of a problem it's getting to be. I've sprayed it on may a boot, and wonder now how much I breathed, and if it matters. SBHarris 03:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a split for a section explicitly on the uses of elemental fluorine is what is needed. Btw, I mentioned PFOS at the bottom of the article under safety of organofluorine compounds. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because F₂ is so reactive, it shouldn't have a biological role (unless we look up some chemical warfare info or occupational information about exposure). because of this, and because the section has languished for so long (thanks to Stone for adding content but I have now moved that content to organofluorine), i am going to remove the section. the dental stuff is for floride not fluorine. additionally, there are many edits on this talk page that discuss the bias this article has towards organofluorine compounds. it looks like an advertisement for pharmaceutical companies to me. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So what did you do with this information you deleted? There was no consensus for that. When we say "fluorine" or any other element, we don't mean just the free element-- we include the element as all of its compounds. The "nitrogen cycle" in nature (for example) isn't just about elemental nitrogen. Magnesium metal has no role in biology, but you'll see extensive discussion of the role of magnesium in biology in both the magnesium article and subarticle. Likewise the roles of sodium and potassium in biology. So stop this. The consensus was to isolate elemental sections from the others, not get rid of everything in the article that wasn't about elemental flourine. SBHarris 01:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, you are quite misleading. the consensus you are referring to is regarding uses and applications. that section does not equal the biological role section. the referenced content it at organofluorine, we'll see what the author thinks as I wrote on his talk page. For the bigger issue: you don't think fluorine reads like an ad for pharma? -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Most of the uses given are not pharm uses, and there's a note that the pharm uses are a prime causes of organofluorine buildup in wastewater (which they are). As such, these are all notable. If you go to a hospital, it would be rare for you to escape without being administered some fluororganic, from your anesthetic to your antibiotic.

As to the role of flourine in biology, we don't know what it is, except that Mertz's fluoride-deprived rats were scruffy, puny, and ill. All this is prevented by levels of fluoride far below those added to water supplies for dental reasons. THAT role is almost certainly not meditated via a fluoro-organics (no F-C bonds)l; it's a direct strengthening action of F- on hydroxyappetite salts in enamel. There's now no place in the article where somebody who wants to know about fluorine and biology can find anything. Don't move stuff without links to show where you put it. Organofluorine is not only a non-obvious place for biology, but in the case of teeth it is wrong, and in the case of the rest of biology, nobody KNOWS whether it is right or wrong. SBHarris 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you please copy that to Talk:Fluorine? i will respond there. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on starting the articles on organobromine compounds and perfluorononanoic acid! I think you'll find that creating new articles can be more rewarding than cleaning up and debating the existing ones. That's what I do a lot of the time: crate small articles to fill gaps in Wikipedia. A couple of ideas for the organobromine article: halons used in fire extinguishers, and tyrian purple, another bromine-containing natural product. --Itub (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree it is rewarding. I got the idea off of meta:Wikistress. Thanks for the organobromine compound interwikis. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Perfluorononanoic acid, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks for letting me know. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply removing the term "superior", I encourage you to come up with other, concise, language to differentiate FKM from other heat- and chemical-resistant elastomers. Neoprene is a chemical resistant elastomer. So is nitrile rubber. Silicone is a heat-resistant (but not chemical-resistant) elastomer. So some language is needed to point out that FKM does indeed have superior chemical resistance to other chemical-resistant elastomers. Delmlsfan (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you can find what you are looking for at the fluorocarbon page where i have described some of the chemistry behind fluorocarbon stability. please do not describe them as inert however, because teflon is susceptible to reduction through the birch reduction. furthermore, i am not sure if fluoroelastomers are true fluorocarbons or just "fluorocarbon-based." on a non-conflict note, thank you for your contributions I think you did a good job on the Emulsion polymerization page. so thank you for your contributions to WP. -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing toward a consensus. I think it's important that we have such discussions. Badagnani (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shootbamboo: Dittoing the thanks regarding helping us reach a consensus on the ash spill title. Your efforts were extremely helpful. Bms4880 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it helped. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article update. I'm trying to decide if this article should be tagged to be expanded and put into sections [e.g. by country]. Let me know if you have any input on this. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShootBamboo, I have copy-edited the lead text of the pfoa article, to show how I think a precise, short, concrete summary should be. I typically left out a lot of the non-precise information. Feel free to revert or better to re-introduce some (but sparingly) information about where all those places are that might lead to PFAO. If the legal actions are really important, perhaps a small paragraph on it should be re-introduced in the lead text too. Notably missing is information about who produces it, how much, for what application, etc: concrete details. Just some recommendations. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your edits. I decided to mull over the lead yesterday instead of touching it. I'm guessing I'd be happy with about 8-10 sentences (considering its length) that also hits on the controversial topics per WP:lead. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good to see progress! May I point out a very important points of attention for your editing, viz., User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a. In the lead text, you have introduced words such 'a variety of', 'artificial', 'effective', etc. These are either superfluous, or better replaced by more precise words (FA Criterion 1A). Tony1 has written an excellent text on how you can improve a text by paying attention to these issues. Highly recommended.
• And another way to make the rest of the article better is to include further data on the other aspects of PFOA, such as producers, applications, chemistry, world market, etc. There's much you can do there too! Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much for the suggestions (and link). Yes, I still want to add some information about reactivity under applied degradation conditions. Also, I could add a direct fluorination synthesis route. Not sure how I would expand the applications section. I have seen some more detail in the literature about other producers and some general market data in places so I could add that too. Thanks for the ideas! -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fluorotelomer alcohol, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:KillerChihuahua#"fringe-view" new editors KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, you might suggest he read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution rather than insisting he is "right" to edit war. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shootbamboo. I think this substance (replacement of PFOS) would also be worth of having an article. There is in fact a stub on its anion, nonaflate. The structural formula already exists. What do you think? --Leyo 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks for the links and info. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done btw. Could use some chemistry though! -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made some minor additions to the article. I have now started an article in de-WP. It seems that PFBS has two CAS numbers. One might be for the linear derivative only, whereas the other is for the mixture of linear and branched isomers. Unfortunately, I do not have the possibility to check that on cas.org. --Leyo 00:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user checked on cas.org for me: 375-73-5 is the current CAS number, while 59933-66-3 is outdated (see EINECS link and here (in German)). --Leyo 14:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Sorry I couldn't prove useful on that one. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a friendly message. It would be easier for me to answer more specific questions - you rather asked my "WP philosophy". In my area (materials science and around), WP is a mess. Articles are patched up from fragmented, unsupported and often incorrect statements, and I haven't made my mind yet on fixing that - I just quickly correct whatever I can correct quickly. Blantantly wrong statements and wrong references are probably a priority (as you might notice, I prefer first-hand journal articles, especially free-download ones). Usually my edits are either welcomed or unnoticed, but every now and then I get bashed (as you and many other WP editors) for violating this and that. First it was disappointing, but one has to get thick skin on that (world is not ideal, same as WP). WP guardians have to do their job and sort out spam edits; they usually don't known enough about your field, and they look dead serious only at the surface. Once I reply them, explaining why I did this and that, I revert my edits and its goes through. Off course, tact and common sense should be exercised and all the criticism should be analyzed for why it has appeared in the first place, perhaps there was a good reason (behind a disproportional response :).

Coming back to hydrophobe, I just had those examples off hand. That article is yet very unbalanced and incomplete, and I felt it clearly misses applications.. I believe there is nothing wrong with this and that subject, its just a matter of quality and balance of the content. Best wishes. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about WP being a mess. I thought the same thing when I started editing the PFOA page, for example. (this article has been the one most edited by me so far). I do think that highlighting primary sources can be misleading, however. i have seen some pages dominated by primary sources that have shaken my confidence in WP, for example Liquid breathing. (The lead used to be horrendously misleading). and while I do not doubt your capability to write a review article, you would need to write it and then cite it here before it was encyclopedic. it's not our role to write reviews. but we can review reviews! i hope i make sense without being too "policy prone." also! the majority of the content in primary sources is a secondary source. and if you've been citing from that, then just ignore me. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply here to Smokefoot as well.

1. Books are good if the topic has been established before say 1970ies, maybe 1980ies. My topics (materials science) are rapidly developing nowadays. Books can't keep up. Besides, quality of recent books has dropped significantly - peer review is much softer or non-existent, and authors are not the top specialists, as it used to be.
2. Journal articles count by millions and thus most of them are incorrect or repeating each other. But, they are much easier to access and to figure out that :).
3. There is no right or wrong here. I follow my way because of my personal experience. Most articles I create on WP are first-hand reviews where I know the field (ZnO is not exactly that, but close). I'm undecided yet on spreading the coverage. I shouldn't. But. Unfortunately, I see articles written by non-specialist that pushes me to fix them. Then the issue of reliability of primary sources gets in. Still, I'm trying my best to provide reliable sources - read the original paper, or pick more reliable journals and authors. Yes, no guarantee here, but again, first aid on WP is to make things better, not ideal (though a proper way is probably to rewrite rather than patch). Best wishes. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a while responding, I got fed up with Wikipedia and just left it for a while. Life's too short to waste it fighting a battle one isn't meant to win. But when I feel up to it, I do try.

You mean lamestream sources, not reliable ones. And yes, I am happy to say that I am a real human being and so naturally take truth over BS. That is why I fight for truth. My concept for better Wikipedia pages is more truthful, accurate pages. Not placing BS spins on truth to sound better. I have zero interest in that. If you are interested in helping to make people on Wikipedia appreciate the harmful effects of sodium fluoride I'd greatly appreciate your help. Not only for adults and elderly people, but for the children. Mothers who simply don't know any better, and who may mistakenly consult a resource like Wikipedia for the...facts. Neurolanis (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I do the best I can, given the fabricated environment and its limitations on the truth.Neurolanis (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to be frank, I find all of your statements mindless, unrealistic and blindly supportive of the Internet's largest propaganda network. Neurolanis (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do my contributions, say, to the PFOA page, also fit within this rubric? as an wiki-encyclopedia, WP has to have standards (restrictions) by definition. btw, am i supposed to be getting paid for being part of the conspiracy? ;) what did i say that was "unrealistic"? -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Wikipedia's paying you, huh? I didn't realize that they paid editors here. Neurolanis (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, i'm making fun of your characterization of me. answers to questions ended with rubric and unrealistic would be nice. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie smokie. Neurolanis (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, correct. But in that case, given the particular user's history, I thought it at least partly pertinent on that page. I do try to be patient and understanding of people who come in all excited about saving the world (with Neurolanis, here is an example, and with another IP, here), but Neurolanis just doesn't seem to want to listen. He's just an alternative-viewed person, neither right nor wrong, but not probably not befitting a mainstream-based (or lamestream?) place such as WP. Or we all could be wrong, who knows... :) Keep up your good editing. Freestyle-69 (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoot,

thought you might be interested in this.

Ben (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are interested in the topic and occasionally concerned about my slant, I made a significant edit to fluorine. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to give you this a while ago:

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tremendous work on those extraordinarily tough and thus eternally persistent organofluorine compounds. Hard to see how anyone could not be disturbed by such things. II | (t - c) 07:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First one. =) And thank you for your contributions also. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic new article; always a pleasure to see something like this when I'm patrolling the new pages :). Considered submitting it to DYK? Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. =) Yes I'll go ahead and do that now. -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Perfluorooctanesulfonamide, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so are you saying cast iron IS toxic when it comes into direct contact with food? The phrase "seasoned or enameled for ease of use" is lousy English, and incorrect. FiveRings (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed for protecting my userpage.

You know, some time ago you asked my advice on psychological problems related to Wiki editing .. I got one myself recently and sought advice of more experienced editor, i.e. you never know when you hit an angry guy and why would he get angry, but most hard-core wikipedians are friendly. They might scrutinize your edits, but they are ready to provide moral and technical help. NIMSoffice (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, glad to help out. -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am inquiring as to why you removed my edit from the Bisphenol A article on June 30, 2009. I specified the types of products that were being removed from shelves, baby bottles and other children’s products, because those are currently the only items that have in fact been removed from shelves because they contain BPA.Sharon4Health (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Just saw it as unnecessarily wordy. Perhaps misleading also, as if baby bottles are the only exposure source being looked at. For example. Also, the gist of the lead that "some concern" from the NTP has been expressed, isn't isolated to a specific product, epoxy resins in canned foods anyone? I hope that makes sense. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks for the info! Sharon4Health (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you removed the structure from Almagate. It is because you don't see the negative charges on the OH ions? I was having a problem with very thin charges - if you check the blow-up on commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Almagate.svg&width=2000px - you can see they are there, or is there something else wrong? - Leyo on Commnons has put a disputed structure template up - I just took the SMILES and converted it to a structure. I now have the fix for the thin negative charges - if that is all that's wrong then I can fix it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was one part, the other was the lack of ion pairing, as is done in the PubChem image. Otherwise, (thank you greatly for making the image!) but it doesn't make much "chemical sense" (in my mind) as an image without these associations represented pictorially. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see - Hmmm, I can have have a go at making it more like that.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PubChem is not always a good source for structures. I still doubt that your structure is correct. --Leyo 06:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not accurate :) The first reference cited in the article describes the structure as determined by X-ray diffraction. This sort of compound really isn't best illustrated with 2D formulae. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shootbamboo. I see that you have added the dead references to the article I have removed. I have no problem with that, but could you maybe help me to get the ones that would work? Thanks. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 17:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADREF asks (from my current understanding) to remove the urls to dead links (but not the references themselves). I will attempt that (if they exist) now. Other than that, I don't think I'll be much help. Thanks for the comment. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a ref, left the other, as it relates to the ones i re-added. Best. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern related to WP:NPF, the section of BLP on "persons who are relatively unknown": "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Boldface in original. The damage to her apartment was not related to her notability, which is as a journalist, so I omitted.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I built upon your suggestion. Not sure if I should have put the reworked hook in the template though. -Shootbamboo (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bencherlite^Talk 11:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shootbamboo, I notice you've done some good work expanding the Biomonitoring (chemistry) article recently. I have a big update to propose for it, which I'd like to run past you. The reason I don't simply add it myself now is simple: the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is a client of my employer and I want to be very careful about my potential conflict of interest on the subject. I've approached this keeping in mind that it should be in the interest both of ACC and Wikipedia for this article to be more informative, accurate and well-sourced -- and that's what I believe this expansion would accomplish.

A bit of background: I had been working on this article offline for a few months when I saw recently that you had expanded it, so I took some more time to incorporate information you had added (and in the case of methods, the full paragraph) for the article I have currently posted in my userspace. I've called it Human biomonitoring.

In addition to this suggested namespace move, I'm also proposing that the current article Biomonitoring be retitled Aquatic biomonitoring, though I have no further edits to suggest at this time. I have also created a proposed disambig page to link the two. The three articles are collected on a single page in my userspace called Biomonitoring restructuring project.

Before I realized you had improved the article, I had taken this proposal to the Wikipedia Help Desk. They tried to be helpful but, being unfamiliar with the subject matter, opted to punt. Might be helpful for you to see that (click here), as I give a somewhat more thorough explanation of my approach and the full reasoning behind the proposed name changes.

Let me know if you have any thoughts here. If you like it, feel free to move these over yourself, or let me know if you have any questions or comments. If I don't hear back I'll probably run this past one of the relevant WikiProjects on this subject matter. Hope to get your feedback. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, I plan on commenting further tomorrow. I agree expansion is warranted. From my own WP editing, I have used this review a few times so far:

• Houde M, Martin JW, Letcher RJ, Solomon KR, Muir DC (2006). "Biological monitoring of polyfluoroalkyl substances: A review". Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (11): 3463–73. doi:10.1021/es052580b. PMID 16786681. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Supporting Information (PDF).

As you can see from the SI, wildlife and human biomonitoring data is presented together, but sectioned off. Human biomonitoring is certainly notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's basically the same analytical chemistry, and the basic question that is begged—what relevance do the levels have? Human biomonitoring certainly rasies issues (some ethics, etc.) that are not present with wildlife, but I think these differences would be best highlighted in the same article. So I see human and wildlife subsections to a future version. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota, which you cite in the article, for example, has done a fair amount of wildlife biomonitoring to determine the portions of fish to recommend that people eat.[8] In general, I like the expansion. There are things I see I'd play with. (Some of the paragraphs that aren't as well sourced.) I say lets move the current biomonitoring to aquatic biomonitoring and biomonitoring (chemistry) to biomonitoring. What do you think? We should probably start discussing this at those talk pages and link here. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for following up. Glad you like it -- it was a lot of work! As for your suggestions, I would be less inclined to include wildlife-related research in an article about biomonitoring in humans. Based on my reading, they are distinct subjects; in my extensive research on biomonitoring in humans I do not recall finding anything regarding wildlife, so I would be inclined to include any information like that in the article we're about to rename Aquatic biomonitoring. In any case, those are just thoughts for the future. For now I'll follow your suggestion re: current naming and continue disambiguation links instead of a page, but I am still open to using Human biomonitorng with the disambig page, if you change your mind. Meantime, I will put a link to this conversation on the relevant talk pages when I make these edits. And then I have a related article I've been working on which you may want to review, so I'll let you know when that's ready. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. See my notes on the Talk pages here and here. Good for the moment, I think. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Shootbamboo. I mentioned last month that I was working on another article in the same subject area as Biomonitoring, and I've now finished -- it's a proposed rewrite of the Body burden article, which is now posted to my userspace. I believe the current Body burden article is a bit unfocused, places the wrong emphasis on some things and contains information which I think does not belong -- particularly one section which reads pretty much as straight advocacy. I've posted a careful (and lengthy) explanation of what I see wrong with the article to the Body burden Talk page, along with a request for someone else to make this edit, and I've also reached out to another editor who has been involved with the page this year. Let me know if you can help. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any.

The BBC website had it as part of its "QI: Fact of the Day", which is linked to the QI website. If you're unfamiliar with QI, you can read the wikipedia article about it. It's likely to have been thoroughly researched. However, I couldn't find a permanent source on that one. I thought I'd put it there, hoping someone would find said source and be able to add it. I can fully understand why it was reverted (although it should be noted that death by whatever it is you reverted it to isn't referenced either!). His death needs to be referenced somehow, because otherwise dying by falling over a cow is no less plausible than dying of a heart-attack.

Alex Holowczak (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved your comment on the debt to its own section because it appeared to be unrelated to the other comment in the same section. If this was the wrong thing to do then--by all means--move it back. If this is the case then I might just be crazy, but it might help if you made a more substantive comment so that the relationship between the two can be more easily seen. 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Office of Thrift Supervision at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JulieSpaulding (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Office of Thrift Supervision, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from The Elements from Theodore Gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument that Iran used chemical weapons at Halabja is in such a minority of sources that it does not belong in the lead. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5JGldonhk6wC&pg=PA182. Please discuss this before adding it back in. Fences&Windows 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Noticed your edits to this article. I don't think it's a good idea to arbitrarily break a naming convention for reasons of readability, even when other sources do. We had a discussion at Talk:Tetraethyllead about that not too long ago. Could you reconsider? Take tosic acid, p-Toluenesulfonic acid, for example. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the discussion at tetraethyllead it appears I would have voted along with the common name convention (partially for readability). FYI I also moved Perfluorooctanesulfonamide and Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride by inserting spaces. I don't think it really matters much, so I'm not against moving them back. But by "naming convention" you mean chemistry conventions right? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand that chemical nomenclature often leads to unpronounceable or inexplicable names (periodic acid?), I feel quite strongly that nomenclature rules should be followed. I don't mean that IUPAC rules should be blindly applied, but rather, names based on a consistent scheme be used. I note that PubChem uses the version with a space... but on the other hand, biologists do tend to be quite sloppy with chemistry? I understand the problem about readability, but it is what it is. And that's not a good thing to promote. Since you do not object, I will move the three articles back. Thanks for your discussion. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to move without discussion. I didn't think it would be an issue. Thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's part of the WP:BRD cycle, so no need to feel sorry about that. But thanks again for the discussion we had. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You are marvelous. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I'm glad you like my edit-so-far - one of my favourite jobs on WP is making those small changes that can make a good article even better. Bedtime for me now, though. I'll do some more work on it over the next few days. --Kay Dekker (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added page numbers for you from the PDF file per your request.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was very helpful. I made it look pretty. Thank you. -03:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To help you, I also gave you more info from the actual congressional report (sourced to page 44) quoting the reporters who wrote the story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I removed it for now but I will take a look at it when I can. Hopefully you don't mind waiting. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your helpful edits...the reason that last paragraph is so important is because it contradicts Krakauer's book...his book says Wilkinson gave the Washington Post "exclusive" access...however, the reporter in the congressional report directly contradicts that and says they had multiple sources...this is critical to make sure that Wilkinson's page is fair and reflects both sides...can you add that one back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. OK, I'll have a go and then call it a night. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the word exclusive, as that appeared to be the most efficient solution. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be skillful at editing this article with a neutral point of view, so I will probably back away. My last suggestion was to try to connect this page to others by explicitly mentioning Wilkinson in articles on Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and others, hence my orphan tag, which hopefully is temporary. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Jim Wilkinson (communications) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim Wilkinson (communications), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor point, but my {{content}} tag was over my assertion that Koch brothers should be in the #See also section. I can't replace the tag, per 3RR, but I would appreciate it being restored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My move tags were discussed at Talk:Koch family, the whole point of those tags is to facilitate discussion about a potential merger, you shouldnt remove them just because you personally disagree with the merger. Bonewah (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, I'll try to throw "Koch brothers" into the article. Bonewah, as I explained here, I didn't see a rationale given for the merge proposal, so I didn't think tags was justified. (I also generally think tags are ugly.) I'm fine with discussion, but after three opposes, and no rationale, in my opinion, I just didn't see much opportunity for discussion. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, I see that page no longer exists. I think that is wise, as 1990s coverage includes all of them. I see no logical reason to split the family due to headlines of recent news articles. (And taking the long view, perhaps it is not ideal to have that sentence at Koch Family explaining a recent common use for the Koch brothers.) -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your revert on my addition to Gore-Tex. I'd found and cited a valid article that has history of material and listed different types of available material with their properties. Why do you think this is advocacy? I would appreciate if you change content to make it more neutral and make contribution more useful instead of deleting someone's entire contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sytelus (talk • contribs) 04:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is unfortunate you worked toward making a contribution and then were reverted. Some people around here think that is a big problem which discourages great new people from sticking around. So I definitely thought twice before reverting. And I am supposed to be nice to you, and not "bite" you. So, let me explain. (I might be a little blunt, so bear with me.) Your first edit added unsourced (inappropriate -- see WP:V) data which was marked as a minor edit (also inappropriate). Then someone kindly asked asked for a citation. (I would have just reverted.) Your next edit didn't add a citation for that sentence, but rather three paragraphs with one WP:PRIMARY source citation (that sentence is still in the article by the way), with a lovely blurb on PTFE being "as popular as ever" (promotional). (Secondary sources are preferred around here, see that link on primary.) Then you add this which has tons of data, reminding me of this pointless (in my opinion) page. Anyhow, I noticed what appears to be a useful primarily sourced sentence in your addition with all that unsourced technical data so I will re-add that. I hope that explains it. There is plenty to fix up around here, so stick around, and read some more about editing. Here is a link to the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any questions please feel free to ask. =) Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant can't here. [9] — goethean ॐ 21:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shootbambo. Thanks for helping me get started. How do I respond to things that you have written?

I agree that Democracy Now! is relentlessly biased, so I think we should try to eschew those references. When we edit conservative things, we shouldn't go to the far left. Similarly when we edit left things, we shouldn't go to the far right. Am I missing something here?

Thanks,

Heinleinscat (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shootbambo. Thanks for helping me get started. How do I respond to things that you have written?

I agree that Democracy Now! is relentlessly biased, so I think we should try to eschew those references. When we edit conservative things, we shouldn't go to the far left. Similarly when we edit left things, we shouldn't go to the far right. Am I missing something here?

Thanks,

Heinleinscat (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You asked a question about something going on in an article discussion on my page. Then you reverted it. Was that an accident? If so, I'll just respond here for convenience. I'm in your camp regarding the passage about his brother's campaign. I may also have dropped a comment to this effect on the talk. I think we should report his support or persuasion of his brother's campaign to whatever degree our sources have it, and leave it at that. We should also probably link to his brother's article. And we can link something to 1980 Libertarian Party Nomination too. Information about the campaign or links to it can be better found there. -Digiphi (Talk) 00:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah I decided here was the appropriate place to comment. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Shootbamboo, can you explain to me what those + with the numbers are? (Heinleinscat (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Heinleinscat. I am not sure exactly what you mean, but it could very well be from you not signing your comments. Make sure you type four tildes after your comments to sign like this: ~~~~ Best. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If there was something that looked like POV from my edits, feel free to move them. But substantively the changes I made were accurate. I pointed to valid sources such as 990 tax forms. Feel free to revise my edits by removing what you consider POV, but please do so without removing valid, supported information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catdown3 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Catdown3, unfortunately yes I felt it was necessary to revert your contributions. However, if you can find reliable sources that say what you said, and cite them, so that the material can be verified then it can stay. =) Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this and took a look at those edits. SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia, and indeed a very correct description!) is a very unreliable source. Not only is it a wiki, it's used by extreme POV pushers who write very onesided articles using poor or no sourcing. Sourcewatch simply doesn't have as much oversight or quality control as Wikipedia. Those edits seemed more like conspiratorial OR than documented fact. You did right by reverting those additions. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree about Sourcewatch, however the part dealing with me, as a former ACSH employee is entirely accurate. I describe, with first-hand knowledge, happenings that have compromised the integrity of the organization and revealed Dr. Whelan to be dishonest in her defense of ACSH's independence. I can't add those to the ACSH entry, obviously, but someone should. (Nicolas Martin) Nicmart (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Shootbamboo. What research and/or citations are suggested to correct the edit so it complies with guidelines? Bluestarfish88 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment on Wiki chemicals page. Alas, I try to do good. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry it was an ouch. I think it is a problem when good-faith newbies feel unwelcome. The person was expressing reservations about contributing and sincerely felt hostility to their presence. That caught my attention. I also thought they were getting too much resistance, in the sense that the learning curve was being made too steep for them. There's boundless opportunity for articles here, in my opinion. And, in general, it seemed to be that the person mistakenly thought they had to generate consensus before making edits. How often do we do that? Hardly ever for me. But, of course, there are tons of things you do around here you do that I value. Let me make that clear. =) Shootbamboo (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that there is a real need in drawing in more editors. And the tone with Michigan is pretty testy. But the students are really forced labor, and in previous iterations, the Michigan group has been pretty unresponsive over a number of years. They drop pretty mediocre and pretty specialized stuff on us. It's not like they are trying to educate the readership about general themes, like your devotion to PFOS etc, they are writing geeky articles to get grades, period. The part that irritates me (yes, I am easily irritated by academics) is that the professors, the ones that could really help around here, do absolutely zip. And yet they wrap themselves in the flag of do-gooderness. But your comments are helpful, even if we disagree on things. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Chzz  ►  03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were previously involved. Please see.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps eventually. I'm just not very active at the moment. Thanks for the message. Shootbamboo (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, anytime you feel like joining in. Very interesting and dynamic area. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quantitative easing on a topic you have discussed before. You are invited to participate. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there is one if you want to comment. Here CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Red Link Removal Barnstar
		For creating Chlorfenvinfos, a chemical that is used as an insecticide and an acaricide. Good work! ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 09:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]