User talk:Explodo-nerd

I was wondering where you thought that WP Chemicals wanted a list of 50, then I saw the project page. Yeah, that's probably been there for 4-5 years, and is no longer a good representation of our project. I know it took effort to write that article but I don't see much value. The list is arbitrary and it really depends on what sort of work you are doing. A whole bunch of them are solvents too, not really reagents. Without, e.g. a source listing the top 50 reagent chemicals used by laboratories, it's questionable. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi explodo. I just saw that you are in high school. Listen, why don't you lay off the copper nitrate article for a couple of days and let me do it, I know the area and it would be impossible for you to contribute much at this stage. After a couple of days you can take a look and tell me where it is not so clear. You could learn a lot of inorganic chem from the process. Sorry if this sounds a little arrogant, but I know what i am doing. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its interesting that you mention that I'm in high school, as if that's significant or something. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to receive the benefits of higher level education (and consequently my "text book" knowledge may not be as exceptional as you believe yours to be), I am quite intelligent and perfectly capable of editing wikipedia. As I demonstrated on your talk page, I am completely adequate at conversing at your level of self-proclaimed expertise. Apparently you do not know the area of copper nitrate as well as you think. I will continue to edit Copper(II) nitrate whenever I deem it necessary and productive. Please learn some manners, Explodo-nerd (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia always needs intelligent editors, so I hope that you stay in the editing business. Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for getting the ball rolling on copper nitrate. If on your user page you can reveal your high school, I can send the chemistry teacher a college textbook to give you. That way we all stay anonymous but you would be "armed and dangerous."--Smokefoot (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said I am my own teacher, I meant that I'm home schooled. Take it easy on the sarcasm, thanks, Explodo-nerd (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI - I reverted your recent edit on Sodium hydroxide as you restored factually incorrect information (black olives olives do not ?always/ever? start off green) and you NOREF-tagged a section with numerous Wikilinks. If internal references are used and direct users to pages that have citations (which is the case) additional citations are superfluous, particularly when there is just a mention of the subject.--E8 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Explodo-nerd (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pKa values for strong acids are often very varying and unreliable. Since the above acid is strong, there will not be a reliable pKa value for it. The same is evidenced with HCl. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I like precise measurements, but I understand that it's often impractical to achieve them. Perhaps the unreliability of the pKa values should be mentioned in the article. Explodo-nerd (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2012 (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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!