RustyOldShip

Your submission at Articles for creation: Prosulfocarb has been accepted

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Welcome!

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Herbicide resistance classification (September 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Reconrabbit were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Herbicide resistance classification and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Reconrabbit 15:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RustyOldShip! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Reconrabbit 15:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi RustyOldShip! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Information relevant to several pages without being repetitive?, 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 . 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) 06:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HRAC classification (November 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tavantius was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:HRAC classification and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tavantius (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Diephensocksurine.jpg

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)

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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HRAC classification has been accepted

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 21% 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Reconrabbit 18:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)