User talk:Diesel-50

Welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your valuable contribution [1] to trifluoromethyl. I was hoping you could provide some sources for the content. It's expected to WP:CITE WP:RS (reliable sources) when adding content here. Welcome and thanks for expanding trifluoromethyl. I also recommend checking out the chemistry content related discussions here. Thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really what taught in an anvanced undergraduate/beginning PhD class - almost common knowledge, so to speak. I have now added a reference to a monograph that covers the subject, that should be enough. Thanks for the link. Diesel-50 (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP Chemistry suggests that inline citations should be used [2]. Perhaps you weren't aware of that. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a great link you added to Cambrai Homily! Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thanks! But how would glas martyrdom best be translated? The word seems to indicate not a particular primary color but a light hue. "Blue" in English is dark blue, and has connotations of sincerity and calm; this isn't the frame of mind of man who goes on a hunger strike to coerce the King of the World to do him justice.

"Pale" might be a better translation, but my Welsh is non-existent. Diesel-50 (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Red
• 
  White
• 
  Blue
• 
  The Ocean

Hi there. Just to needle you a little, why exactly do you think that organic synthetic apps take precedent over paper making for NaBH₄? The organic synthesis thing is probably small change, relatively speaking, dont you think? No big deal to me but I thought I'd ask. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the chemistry of sodium borohydride is a wide field, with much to say about it. Papermaking is an application of this chemistry. The more general subject should come first. Diesel-50 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for catching that mistake regarding the commercial viability of Sevoflurane. Nice to know that others are paying attention. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]