User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2012

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Aluminium for energy storage and hydrogen production

Aluminium for energy storage and hydrogen production is a significant application (probably more so than guitar plating) that is not mentioned in the aluminium article. It is a fact that some of the research takes place under a commercial umbrella, yet ignoring the application due to "marketing" is throwing the baby out with the bath water. IMHO it would have been better to remove the offending citing and keep the topic, or better yet have an independent expert address the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalibanos (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness of toothpaste

Thanks for you comment.

The article says, "Most of the cleaning is achieved by the mechanical action of the toothbrush, and not by the toothpaste," but does not have an inline citation. I couldn't seem to find a reliable reference in the article. Rather than starting off by tagging the article, I thought I would first make a comment on the talk page, until I understood the matter better.

A while later, I found a reference and added it to the talk page. After I carefully read the reference, I will likely use it to improve the article. As per MOS, I will not give advice in the article.

Thanks for your help in editing Wikipedia.Wikfr (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copper(II) Nitrate

I am getting ready to make a few adjustments to Cu(NO3)2 and I was hoping you could answer a few questions in light of your recent edits. You said that anhydrous Cu(NO3)2 was volatile? Typically volatile is used to describe liquids and sublimates for describing solids, but anyways, I was wondering if you could cite that information. Also, from what I could tell, everything else you added to the Synthesis and reactions section seemed correct, but I think it would be best if you considered citing some of that as well. Thanks, Explodo-nerd (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the suggestions, I will try to upgrade following your advice. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for citing that stuff. However, I moved a lot of stuff around so that it would be better organized, and I also fixed a few mistakes. I did some research and I found that anhydrous copper(II) nitrate is not really volatile. It sublimes in a vacuum at 150-200 oC. Not exactly what I would call a volatile substance. Also, don't be alarmed, (aside from the already mentioned issue) I did not really get rid of any of your information. I just moved it around and expounded upon it, except for the CAS #'s. I think they will go better in the chembox, but I can't figure out how to get multiple #'s in there. It looks like somebody else tried to put them in there but they won't show up. If you know how to do that I would appreciate your assistance. Thanks again, Explodo-nerd (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, volatility depends on your perspective and level of experience. Your descriptions of the structures are incorrect or a very misleading, but this area is is a little complicated. I was going to replace the citation to J Chem Ed (which is incorrectly cited, and irrelevant being a letter from a high school teacher about his classroom demonstrations). The anhydrous material is square planar in the gas phase by electron diffraction. The only solid state X-ray paper I found was on the nitromethane solvate with one bound solvent. Looks pentacoordinate if one ignores nonbonding Cu---O distances. The paper states that the solvent-free material has a similar structure. We probably also ought to discuss the structures of the two hydrates probably one or both nitrates are bound to the trihydrate The ref to Ullmann's does not cover the high school demonstrate bit (is that an application?) so that statement should be moved. Thanks for your help and looking forward to your further suggestions.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, volatility does not depend on your perspective or experience. If someone doesn't understand something, it doesn't make their opinion on the subject correct just because of their perspective or experience. And since you obviously don't understand what volatility means, I'll spell it out for you. Volatile means evaporates readily at normal temperatures and pressures. Hopefully you understand that 150-200 oC and a vacuum is not normal temperatures and pressure. On a separate note, the structure in the gas phase is irrelevant. As you said, the paper states that the dissolved Copper nitrate is similar to the solvent-free material and looks pentacoordinate (the dissolved form). What I know of the structure is what I get from the sources, and they claim that the anhydrous form is hexacoordinate. If you think about it, this makes perfect since since the dissolved form may have five copper oxygen coordinate bonds and one coordinate bond to the solvent making it very similar to the hexacoordinate. It is very likely that the crystal structure of anhydrous copper nitrate is hexahydrate. In regards to your message on my talk page, yes, you are most arrogant indeed. I've looked at lots of your discussions with other users and your are often condescending and super-sarcastic. You obviously need to brush up on WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. This isn't the first time someone has mentioned this to you either. Its really annoying if someone is a jerk when the other person is wrong, but its unacceptable for a person to be a jerk when they are in the wrong. I've got a challenge for you, reply to this in an unspiteful and mature way (and don't be sarcastic about it either). With all due respect and hopes for reconciliation, a very irritated Explodo-nerd (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you might talk to your teacher or some other editor (user Itub would be an excellent choice) to get feel for what we are writing here.
  • "the structure in the gas phase is irrelevant" To whom, you? Chemists often prefer gas phase structures
  • "What I know of the structure is what I get from the sources, and they claim that the anhydrous form is hexacoordinate." What we need to do here is check sources, here are two:
    • B. Duffin and S. C. Wallwork "The crystal structure of anhydrous nitrates and their complexes. II. The 1:1 copper(II) nitrate-nitromethane complex" Acta Cryst. (1966). 20, 210-213 [ doi:10.1107/S0365110X66000434
    • "The Structure of Gaseous Copper(II) Nitrate as Determined by Electron Diffraction" R. E. LaVilla, S. H. Bauer J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1963, 85 (22), pp 3597–3600 DOI: 10.1021/ja00905a015
  • "It is very likely that the crystal structure of anhydrous copper nitrate is hexahydrate." maybe a typo, but anhydrous means no hydrate.
  • What we need are structures of the two hydrates, which almost certainly have been reported.
  • Probably want to get rid of the J Chem Ed ref since again it is pretty irrelevant.
  • Volatility is, as I said, something that is relative. No big deal. An inorganic chemist would quibble with your definition " Volatile means evaporates readily at normal temperatures and pressures."

Sorry to hear you are irritated, if we just focus on content, then we are serving the readers.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I said the structure in the gas stage is irrelevant, I meant in the discussion concerning the anhydrous structure. I was simply giving what I know of the anhydrous crystal. You can add what you know of the gas phase to the article.
  • I haven't looked into the structures of copper nitrate when its dissolved in an organic solvent or in gaseous form. You're more than welcome to add that information, as it is most interesting and relevant in context of the whole article (I see that you already have).
  • Obviously I meant hexacoordinate. That's pretty clear from the context.
  • If you know anything about the structures of the hydrates, please add it to the article (I see that you already have). It doesn't make the anhydrous crystal structure any less important.
  • I will replace it with a better source (never mind, you already did so).
  • I really am curious about your definition of volatile, the real definition is pretty cut and dry.

I won't be talking to a teacher as I am my own teacher, and I can tell what you are writing about here (copper nitrate) by looking at the talk page. Looks pretty simple. All that's needed is the various structures of copper(II) nitrate. At the time, nobody had given any information regarding the structure so I helped out. What I said about the anhydrous structure was not incorrect, but I have no problem with you expounding upon it. I've seen the recently edited article and it looks like the structure section has really been improved. As I have already said, I just wanted to make the paper more organized and added some stuff on the structure since there was zip at the time. I'm glad I got the ball rolling and you and Ben have found some great sources. Keep up the good work. One more thing, I think you may have made a typo in the first paragraph. Is it supposed to say: more commonly encountered in commerce than in the laboratory? Explodo-nerd (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smokefoot, impressing performance.--Stone (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clothianidin (again)

Hi again. I wonder if you could take a look at the latest changes to the [clothianidin] page (esp. the new "2008 beekill incident" and "Possible contamination issues" sections) and add any comments you might have to the bottom of the clothianidin talk page, where I propose to delete both new sections. Talk:Clothianidin#Request_for_comments_on_1.29_chemical_accidents_.28again.29_and_2.29_citing_primary_research Thx USEPA James (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, thanks for participating in the discussion...excellent observations and suggestions. USEPA James (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A part of Wikipedia chem is dominated by amateur toxicologists/environmentalists who see Wikipedia as a way of saving the world. Such editors require huge time investment to convince that circumspection is required and that lots of tox data is irrelevant. Anyone who questions the Google-able box and environmental data is suspected of being evil-spirited river poisoner. Good luck. The main push should always be for better references. There are far more determined amateurs than there are professionals, so it is tough going. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it. The latest offensive involves certain editors filing official and semiofficial complaints about me, none of which have gotten any traction. I was happy to see that one abusive editor got a 3 month block. (see also COI complaint, USEPA_James username complaint). The modus operandi seems to be, if you can't win through rational discussion and respect for established consensus, pile on the litigation. I also found it odd that all the sudden there's a rash of IP address editors chiming in against me....social media at work, I'd guess. Anyway, I have another round of edits going on the clothianidin page. If you have the time to take a look, I'd appreciate any comments you have, for or against. Also, in the spirit of social media, feel free to ask others to chime it as well. USEPA James (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for working on oxide

Really important article and wasn't much there. You are doing a good thing...TCO (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of article "Grease (lubricant)"

Hello. I see that you have reverted wholesale the changes that I made yesterday to Grease (lubricant). I had added section “classification and standards”. Your explanation for the revert was “Wikipedia is NOT an American encyclopedia - it is international - please keep balance”.

Please allow me to make a few points:

  1. I have no doubt that the English Wikipedia is international in nature and not a purely American endeavour. I am hoping that you are not making assumptions about my point of view or intentions.
  2. I do not understand your accusation. It sounds as if I had written or somehow implied that Americans had jurisdiction over (or a somehow superior handling of) the way everyone should classify grease! Was that the impression you had? My perspective is that even if I had written about purely American-centric facts (and I believe that I have not), those could have been of real interest to readers around the world.
  3. ASTM, SAE and even NLGI renamed themselves for a good reason: their influence and membership go well beyond the borders of the U.S.A. and their standards are used or consulted in many countries. While researching the topic, I had found mention of those standards in sites and documents from various countries, including India, China, Germany and Russia. Certainly, national and international standardisation bodies commonly consult each other and work together. As for ISO, it does not get more international than that, so why delete mention of it too?
  4. Keeping balance is an excellent thing, but it usually does not require deleting everything. One might perhaps argue that vacuum is neutral, but it is hardly encyclopædic. I supplied information that came to my knowledge while researching the topic. If you felt that the information was skewed, you could have tagged it (also adding a few specific ideas in the discussion page) to encourage an editor to improve it or, much better, you could have improved it yourself by adding complementary information. For example, if you have access to sources describing the geographic reach of different standards, you could put things in a useful perspective. If you know of additional standards (even historical standards), it would be great to see them listed. If the standards that I listed have drawn pertinent criticism from various parts of the world, that should be included too; for example, ISO 6743-9 seems to have a different approach that probably deserves some expansion. What do you think could be changed or added to make the section better?

On my side, I was thinking that the section was certainly incomplete. Besides the various international standards of which I am not aware, I thought that it would be interesting to add a list of testable properties, since classifications revolve around them. But that goes beyond what I am able to write.

—Wlgrin 01:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer (on my talk page) and for restoring my edits. I'm certainly (and I mean it) in favour of avoiding national bias in articles. To be frank, I was more afraid that somebody would accuse me of “automotive” bias (not that I have any, I'm equally ignorant in that field), since the first standards I read (and therefore wrote) about were pretty much tailored by and for the automotive industry (another tradition from which the newer ISO standard apparently deviates). As you have certainly guessed by now, I'm essentially ignorant of the topic. I was originally looking for information, did not quite find it in Wikipedia, so I searched for more and tried to fill in the gaps by contributing a few snippets that seemed useful to me (what I would have liked to find). The obvious downside is that what I wrote is based on what I found, instead of being a well thought-out and comprehensive summary, and I'm sure that it has gaping holes. Unfortunately, I cannot do much better, but I am trusting that more knowledgeable people will be interested in improving/correcting/completing it.
Thanks again for taking the time to read all this and for caring enough about it.
—Wlgrin 06:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metal halides & metal halide complex

Hi Smokefoot

I didn't notice your existing article when I wrote metal halides. Do you think we should merge the two? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, we should merge these. Go ahead, you know the area better than most editors. The idea was to start short surveys on topics in coordination chemistry, lest these articles get off to a unpromising start. If we start these even with short articles, we can set the tone with general overview, references to general sources, and non-parochial content. Here's a partial inventory:
There are too many ligands to try to cover all of them. We do need to start one on metal phosphine complex. The above articles also need a lot of redirects.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I will look at metal phosphine complex next. It's pretty important seeing as how phosphines are very popular as ligands for catalysts. I think we have a series of articles on diphosphines as well. The "inventory" you have over there looks very useful. Perhaps we can use it to classify the most significant (popularly used or most interesting) ligand classes in the articles ligand or coordination chemistry. I think we can add the crown ethers, aza-crown ethers, and kryptands or kryptates to the list. I think there is some thiacrown ethers as well, 9S3 comes to mind.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've started on metal phosphine complex. Just a rough draft for now, I need to head home. Can you provide some insight on the origin of phosphiines' π-acidity? I recall the consensus view was the anti-bonding MOs, but I thought the hypervalence theory might be interesting to mention. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should merge diphosphines into this section. Diphosphines are little (never?) used outside of coordination chemistry, and the article title is frustratingly similar to diphosphine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naked protons

Why'd you delete the HSbF6 image from fluorine? there must be a reason, I'm sure...I just don't yet get it. Could you explain? Thanks in advance--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks for the note. I don't think that there is evidence for this structure. The image is just some picture that a naive chemist with a drawing program produced, these computer-driven images have a way of implying evidence when there is none. There is just not much evidence for naked protons in solids and solutions. People fantasize about them (see image at Fluoroboric acid) because the concept is digestible. The Mootz and Bartmann paper that I included in fluoroantimonic acid indicates that solid acid consists of Sb2F11- and things like HF2+ and H2F3+. I used to suffer from this naked proton fantasy for many years too, until some curmudgeon corrected me.
Edgar181, DMacks, Dirac66, and V8rik know a lot or hard-core chemistry, and you are encouraged to contact them. Perhaps I am being too picky in disparaging such images. I should draw an alternative image. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got ya. Thanks, you made it clear (will probably add a few words on this, surprized me). Also thanks for the names. Got a few general fluorine questions I need to be cleared. Will ask someone of them :) Also, an alternative image, while could be neat, is not so necessary. I even have an impression we could use the incorrect one (stating, of course, it's incorrect). If a problem, don't think of it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Forgive my ignorance [1], HF is a gas, and can act as a solvent only if dissolved in a solvent (water or etc), thus how can HF alone (which is the topic of the article) be a solvent? Materialscientist (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you probably mean in an ice bath. Ok, sorry. Materialscientist (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18-crown-6

Thanks for your edit! The article looks much more elegant and simple! I'm sorry that my English and communication skills are not that good and so I made it messy.

I will try to search for the crystallographic data from my book, and see if I can construct a model out. By the way, I was wondering how you guys can construct such beautiful and professionally-looking structures? I used ChemSketch but as you can see my drawings are often far from good. Can you tell me which software you use what are the settings? Thanks! LHcheM (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most chemists use ChemDraw, which is probably not available to you. There are other drawing programs, which might be discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Structure drawing. As you can see, I found a publication that discusses the structure of the crown either. The compound probably does not exist as a highly symmetric species in solution, it must unfold for the cation, other crowns are more pre-organized. Keep up your good work.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the X-ray crystallographic data in book for 18-crown-6, and your molecular structure matches with that. It forms 2 pairs of intramolecular CH---O hydrogen bonds. Maybe this accounts for the binding of K+ ions by 18-crown-6 being less thermodynamically favorable than dibenzo-18-crown-6, and so it's more superior? I'm not quite sure about this as this is the only info I can get. Need to search for crystallographic data of dibenzo-18-crown-6 to confirm this. I will try to match the quality of drawings with ChemSketch in that case. Thank you for your appreciation anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LHcheM (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thiosulfinate

Thanks for originally starting the article and for your helpful commentsDolly442 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi. I noticed you edited some of my edits :P

Just curious, where are you from? What do you do for a living? Chemya (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and good luck with your work. I am a chemist in the US. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a little help please...

Is it possible to change the file name of an image that I have uploaded? Or do I have to upload the file again with the correct name? Roshan220195 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A Barnstar!
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.7.109 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ketene vs ketene

Not sure if you have it watchlisted, but I just saw and responded to your Talk:Ethenone#Rename ketene? comment. DMacks (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the recent edit

sorry about that. it seems we were both using STiki and reverted each other's edits.Thebestofall007 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinson's catalyst

I am sorry that I forget the definition of organometallic compounds, but would you please provide a edit summary so that other people could understand it? Thanks. --MakecatTalk 10:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinson's catalyst has no Rh-C bonds, so it is usually not considered an organorhodium compound.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert in Chemotherapy

Hello - I see you reverted, without providing any explanation, two edits I rapidly made (admittedly, in a far from ideal way) this morning to avoid an inappropriately positioned piece of text in the Delivery section dedicated to current clinical practice (as distinct from in vitro experiments for possible future strategies). I had moved the sentence to the Targeted delivery mechanisms where I believe it belongs, together with information on other vehicles. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted without explanation because you and some others are adding so much substandard or misleading information that I had insufficient time. These complexes have almost nothing to do with real applications that you are suggesting. To suggest otherwise is to mislead readers. Sorry to disappoint you, I would be glad to discuss the topic further if you wish and help you in your editing. Wikipedia chem is not so terrible that a group of students can expect to upload a large amount of material without being corrected. It is unfortunate that you teacher is not involved. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? What "substandard or misleading information" And what "teacher"?

You've obviously got the wrong end of the stick here! This morning, in 5 rushed minutes, I repositioned a piece of text which had just been added in gf by a new student editor, but blatantly out of place. I also took the time to leave edit summaries explaining what I was doing. If you look a bit more closely, you'll see you actually reverted to the original blunder. There appears to be only one very preliminary study on the subject, and its inclusion anywhere on the page is likely UNDUE. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you were right and I apparently messed up. Sorry about that. I was trying to cull a very large number of awful edits by a group of students and the article was in the crossfire. There had been added some nonsense about metallaprisms that fortunately was removed. Sorry for the trouble.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, Smokefoot. I gathered you were stressed, so I tempered my initial displeasure. See you around, —MistyMorn (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metal_carbonyl#Characterization & Infrared spectroscopy of metal carbonyls

Could you help me take a look? Is there any more that can be salvaged? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I am swamped with something else but I will try to help. BTW, thanks for your help with the rush of new so-so content. I figured you might have a special interest in the cis effect. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Yes I do, but there's a higher activation barrier, because it's a little more involved than metal carbonyls. I'll work on that one too. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a chance, help me think about the amount of emphasis I placed on group theory? Hereabouts, that's the only way to look at it, but I imagine the approach might feel impenetrable to those without this foundation. Certainly was to me, in the past. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well its a crappy article that duplicates material in metal carbonyls (table of nuCO) and tries to function as a textbook. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. But I am about to give up because the rush of mediocre crap and only a few of us seem to do anything about it.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Metal carbonyls are soluble in organic solvents such as benzene, diethyl ether, acetone, glacial acetic acid and carbon tetrachloride, but the neutral derivatives are soluble in water or lower alcohols."

Hey SF, would you mind checking this statement? Did you mean that the cationic or anionic complexes are soluble in water, whereas the neutral complexes are soluble in organic solvent? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing chemistry pages

"Hi I see that you are helping or trying to help with Wikipedia. If you are "not so much of a chemistry expert " you probably want to edit in another part of Wikipedia. Ask around for advice before editing. Much of your (and your fellow students') work so far has not been at our standard, but we understand that you are still learning your chemistry. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk)" 13:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smokefoot,

I really appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure who read my page that wasn't 'so much of a chemistry expert'- I assume your comment was for them. I expect my page to edited/corrected as this is my first time posting on wikipedia. As you can see above on my talk page I tried to further understand what it was that I could change about my page to improve it to wikipedia's standards. Any further suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Trytowearasmileeveryday (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trytowearasmileeveryday (talk • contribs) 


  " You need to tell your teacher or instructor to interact with the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Your class is submitting articles that are generally too long, too specialized, have lousy artwork, and poor and incomplete referencing. We know that you have to do your homework but you are placing a large burden on others to do your cleanup. Just write short things for existing article and feel your way. You do not have enough grasp of the area to contribute at the level you are currently trying for. No one would, so its not your fault. You are just being too ambitious jumping into a relatively sophisticated encyclopedia with massive articles on narrow topics. Most of your work will be removed, probably (if it hasnt already). Dont feel bad, its a learning process - start small like anything new! Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

       Oh, please ignore my previous edit summary - I have an autocompletion problem sometimes. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)"

Smokefoot- This wasn't a 'homework assignment.' I created the article Jemmis mno rules because I was surprised that it wasn't on Wikipedia, and the rules had been established for about ~10 years. I know that my article is far from perfect- which is why I absolutely expect it to be edited heavily- at least I have started the page. I'm sorry that you find that my artwork lousy, my references incomplete, and my article too specialized. Could you give me constructive criticism on specifics on what I could fix to improve theses issues in my article? I realize that I have lots to learn, as do we all, and I'm trying develop as a professional in my field (biochemistry/inorganic chemistry).Trytowearasmileeveryday (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Sidenote- I looked at the talk page for chemistry- good to know what others thoughts areTrytowearasmileeveryday (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here are some problems:
  • The artwork is awful - if you need someone to explain how, then you should not be editing artwork for chem!
  • The referencing and topic are too specialized. Reads like your pet project. The reason that we did not have an article on this topic is because it is relatively unimportant.

--Smokefoot (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves

I am surprised to have to say this to someone with 15K edits, but cut-and-paste moves are strongly discouraged since they mess up a page's history and make it far more difficult to ascertain who added what and when. I initially noticed you doing this with Naphthoquinone/1,4-Naphthoquinone (1a, 1b), but, looking through your contributions, can also see e.g. 2a, 2b and others. Please could you look through your contributions and tag affected pages with {{Histmerge}} so that the moves can be done properly (i.e. preserving their history)? (More detailed instructions are available at WP:SPLICE.) Thank you. It Is Me Here t / c 15:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please recommend measures that would allow me retrieve the misplaced histories. I would be glad to cooperate. For Naphthoquinone, since all of the relevant names were in use, I did not see any recourse short of asking an administrator, which I guess I should have done. My sincere apologies, because I too like to review faithful history records. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the end of the world – I can see that the edits are in good faith and that you have a commitment to improving our chemistry articles' actual content, but WP-specific policies do also need to be followed to ensure the smooth running of things.
  • If by 'retrieve' you mean find out when/where you performed cut-and-paste moves, look through your contribs for big diffs (they'll be in bold, if you have fairly standard user settings); especially pairs of one large removal of content followed by a large addition of content.
  • If by 'retrieve' you are asking about how to attract the attention of a Sysop to the matter (something which you will usually need as cut-and-paste fixes typically require deleting and undeleting pages at various points), the instructions are at WP:SPLICE. It Is Me Here t / c 20:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need help moving articles, or fixing cut-and-paste merges. I've done the two listed here already. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3a, 3b; 4a, 4b look like cut-and-paste to me. Please look through your contribs. It Is Me Here t / c 10:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

  • Jemmis_mno_rules - whatever I did here, I undid
  • Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory - whatever I did there, I undid.
  • Bridging carbonyl this was a short-lived, single author misguided article that I converted to a redirect. The history of the redirect is retained for all that are interested. If I had to ask someone's permission to convert a bad article into a redirect, progress would be impeded and dumb articles would persist. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see the risk of converting short-lived cruft (often duplicates of what we have) into redirects and shifting (selectively, not wholesale) the content.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine. The now-redirect will contain the relevant history. That is not a copy-and-paste move. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polyacetylene

I replied on my talk page, but later edits will probably mean it does not show on your watchlist. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. I figured that the controversy was too time consuming and too messy and maybe too much of my own peeve. The nuisance of, IMHO, selective referencing, peacocking a few individuals, and remodeling history to match an agenda has been ongoing for years but its not that big a deal, in part thanks to the Nobel Committee. My main concern is that absence of any participation by chemically fluent admins. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that an issue like this is best handled by admins, whether chemically fluent or not. It needs a number of editors who are prepared to put a lot of time into coping with other editors who may be putting a lot of time on their own POV. I looked at it as editor who is a chemist, not as an admin. However right now I have neither the time to edit a lot nor to act as an admin. I just vaguely keep up with my watchlist. Good luck with it. I wish I could do more. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beta-Carotene

Can you help me out? I see that you reverted my edits to Beta-Carotene. I realize that there is a higher standard for medical sources but not all dot com sites are considered bad sources. Could you point out the specific citations that I used that you would not consider notable? --Morning277 (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the note and sorry to come across as a reproving nun. The chemistry editors are relatively careful about not offering med advice.
In my view, most references that go to a .com site are unacceptable for any medical claim. Most of these sites are trying to sell something and using such techno-advice to engender a sense of technical know-how, which in turn props up their stature. These views are cynical, I know. Personally, I just avoid giving medical advice except for LD50's and things like that. The best references for medical claims are medical textbooks, and I lack access to these. Failing textbooks, one could cite major overviews, such as books or articles that assess the literature on a given topic. Officially, WP is not in the advice-giving business (WP:ADVICE), although a lot of "advicey content" is present anyway. In any case, best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense. I thought you were simply blanking citations because they were .com and included as medical references. Your explanation given above I agree with 1,000% although there are many .com sites with valuable and unbiased information that are (and should be) used to cite content for medical articles. There are also cites that like to spam these articles in an attempt to sell products (they should probably do their research first so that they realize that these are non-follow links and will not help them). Anyways, I believe you can see from my edits that I am careful to cite only sources that are notable (at least I try my best). I realize there is a higher standard in the medical articles and as such I choose my references carefully. The ones cited for the article were notable; however, maybe the "Grave’s Disease & Thyroid Foundation" could be seen as a little bit biased. Either way, I see your point about them. I will be doing some clean up on the article this afternoon as it desperately needs it. If the information I cited is contained in other locations, I will move it into a section for "interactions" so it can be found easier. For sake of argument, any citations that I re-use on the clean up I will bring up on the talk page for others to discuss. Thanks again for the information and for keeping watch on these pages to avoid vandalism and spam.
On a side note. What do you mean that as a chemistry editor you are careful about not offering medical advice? I looked at your edits and see that your contributions to Wikipedia are great. Although I realize that Wikipedia is not in the business of giving medical advice, you are more knowledgeable about the topic than many people (like myself) who edit the page. Not that people who edit it do not know about the topic, but you probably know more. I would love to see more of your expertise used to update some of these articles. Your contributions to Wikipedia are valuable. Thanks again and happy editing. --Morning277 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard (not on the editing part, but the part about the citations). I found more citations from .gov sites to support the content on use of alcohol. I also cleaned up the article and made it a little bit easier on the eyes. I added an additional section for medical uses as well. Thanks again for the help and the input. --Morning277 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am suspicious of any medical information in Wikipedia and think that only MD's or their equivalents should add such material. But until that extremely unlikely event, these articles get filled with all sorts of do-gooder advice, folk-wisdom, and well-intentioned cruft. Oh well, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. From the legal profession, I also see many of the law articles with people interjecting their opinions on legal standards as opposed to just citing the sources and leaving it up to the reader to formulate their own. I completely get where you are coming from. --Morning277 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polybutadiene

Are you finished with the Polybutadiene article for now? H Padleckas (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done for now. I wanted to transfer some info from a review on Nd-based catalysis for PB. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water ionizer

Sorry, but I've reverted. Yes, the claims for water ionizers are baloney - but we can't say that no ions are produced in the process. Vsmith (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wondering ... on the other hand it seems non-factual to not say that the contraption is pseudoscience. On a related topic, you might take a stab at stating that electrolysis of water does not increase the ionic strength of the solution. Thanks for the note, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pseudoscience bit didn't really bother me, but the lead already establishes that w/out the word. Recalling lab activity with a beaker, electrodes & test tubes ... an indicator sure showed ion concentrations in the water around the electrodes ... so just have a means to siphon that portion off and drink, ahh cures all your ails :) Vsmith (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really??? What ions could possibly be forming around an electrode in water? How on earth would an "indicator" show ions? This misconception* is exactly the murky seam that the makers of this device hope to exploits. There are no ions except 10-7M H+ and 10-7 OH-.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC) *PS: at least if my mental picture of electrolysis is less murky than yours![reply]
OK, 'twas phenolphthalein which doesn't "show" ions, but indicates high pH around the hydrogen producing electrode along w/ presumably hydroxide and that pink cloud trails off in the solution toward the opposite electrode. Anyway, although the overall pH in the beaker is neutral, the pH at the electrode sites isn't. If my mental picture is murky - so be it, it's based on a couple decades of watching students separate H2 and O2 from water by electrolysis with simple equipment ... and such as ref 3 from the article in question. Vsmith (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The website implies that one accumulates H+ at the anode balanced by a remote accumulation of OH- at the cathode. The images trick students into concluding that one could have well-separated pools of cations and anions, which is incorrect. Electroneutrality is maintained at a very, very, very local level. Proposed explanation: for the phenolphthalein effect: these electrolysis experiments are usually for aqueous KCl, in which case one would accumulate some HCl or KOH at the anode and cathode. But in the absence of such electrolytes, the electrolysis of water is not accompanied by an increase in ionic strength. Ever (or else I am missing something, which is always possible). --Smokefoot (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "well separated pools" were in two upended test tubes in a 400 mL beaker. And "in the absence of such electrolytes" there is essentially no reaction as pure water isn't a conductor. The KOH would exist as K+ and OH- per solubility. I used potassium or sodium sulfate as the resulting HCl w/KCl usage tended to rather quickly dissolve cheap Fe electrodes (and the possibility of interferring Cl2 gas production). As the localized KOH and H2SO4 (or other sulfate species) from each electrode mix following cessation of the electrolyzing current, the pH returns to near neutral. I say near neutral because the presence of a light precipitate of a brown iron sulfate or iron hydroxide (inferred, not analyzed) from the acid dissolution of the iron electrode would presumably skew it a bit. Anyhow ... there do exist local accumulations of aqueous KOH and H2SO4 at the two electrodes during the electrolysis. I can see the possibility of removing an aliquot of "alkali water" from the vicinity of the H2 producing electrode during the process, but do the marketed machines do that? Dubious, and would seem easier just to add a bit of lye to your water and drink away. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we're in agreement. I am just arguing that electrolysis of pure water does not boost the ionic strength of the water nor does it modify the H+ or OH- content of the entire system. Students (or at least I was) under and different impression. Having an electrolyte makes the operation a lot easier, but it also changes the system drastically because one can then accumulate H+ and OH-. Thanks for working with me on this. It always bugged me. I assume that one can electrolyze pure water, but it is just slower or requires a greater overpotential. Now I am wondering why one gets some H2 and some KOH in the K2SO4 solution, what determines this H2/KOH ratio. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphosphazenes

Thank you for your interest in and suggestions on the polyphosphazene article update. We (HRAPSU), in writing this article, have made an effort to maintain a neutral point of view and to cite as many other authors as possible per WP:COI. We will make an effort in the near future to cite more secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRAPSU (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you did a great job, clearly. It is an honor for Wikipedia that a distinguished contributor gave their time so generously. A more general referencing would be more appropriate, when you get the time. There are many articles here that would benefit from even a lightest touch of your expertise. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin U

I noticed your detraction of the concept of a Vitamin U in S-Methylmethionine. The concept did not belong there. Hopefully, that was really most of your problem with it. It belongs in its own article. 137.186.43.70 (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haber process

Nice work. Riventree (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I'm sorry, but it's obviously that edit summary is not compulsory. Besides, even if you are suspecting me, wouldn't it be better just have a look at my edits to see if they were constructive or not-- instead of just reverting them? And, these articles don'e "guide decisions" per WP:MEDICAL.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm trying to improve that. (on zhwiki edit summary is not commonly used...)--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pentane

Not quite sure what drove you when you undid my changes based on "probably true". Maybe you want to comment on the talk page of the article. 109.154.5.169 (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC). Sorry, had forgotten to log in. It is me: Jaeljojo (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question re RFC

Do me a favor and look at the RFC in Talk:Liquefied petroleum gas. I am not sure that I see a consensus there, but I do see enough there to take the section out, as I would like to remove it also. All I do by moving it is to push a problem somewhere else. The section does not fit where it is. Your thoughts would be appreciated.JSR (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note discussion at WP:COIN

The activities of Sebastio Venturi are being discussed here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polonium hexafluoride

Hello Smokefoot, I am complaining about a lot of unreliable edits of the user:Double sharp. I have worked on the german version of hexafluoride: de:Hexafluoride. I had added some information about predicted hexafluorides. Later I saw, that the image file:hexafluorides.svg suddenly changed: with Po and later Cr. In the german wikipedia, we have de:wp:tf witch is linked to Wikipedia:No original research, but the german version is more precise: non-establishing a theory. An article of PoF6 will be in de:wp deleted, as it has not enough relevance and the molecule is still predicted. A discussion Double sharp is futile. As you have repaired the article hexafluoride several times, it is better, that you would please tell to Double sharp, to keep his fingers away from this article. With kind regards --JWBE (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a problem. A group of editors are puffing up a certain subgroup of binary fluorides and seem to be using Wikipedia to showcase their limited appreciation of the scope of inorganic chemistry. The violations are WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:TEXTBOOK, and WP:UNDUE, IMHO. Maybe these editors earn school credit or a merit badge for Girl and Boy Scouts. I recommend raising the issue at the Chemicals Talk page. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PoF6 seems to have no CAS-number: http://www.commonchemistry.org/NoResults.aspx?reg=35473-38-2 , perhaps an invention? --JWBE (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose to delete Polonium hexafluoride (violations of WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:TEXTBOOK, WP:UNDUE, and invention of a CAS) and even protect this lemma and related lemmata for not allowing the creation of an article --JWBE (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not expert on CAS registry numbers, but I do know that CAS gives numbers to lots of stuff that is not real. So I would not rely on that as a criterion. In these kinds of fights to remove articles smart people often lose against determined advocates. There is a contingency here that likes articles on hypothetical compounds. So my recommendation, upon reflection, is to simply try to keep the annoyance under control (not many articles should link to PoF6 for example) or ignore it, rather than trying to kill it. There are more fun things to play with. Good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) This chemical is waaaay outside my area, but I checked SciFinder and the CAS# matches. There are 5 literature hits, two of which discuss predicting some spectral values and comparing them to observations, so the chemical is "real enough" to discuss (the topic isn't totally made up). But having the topic meet WP:N to stand as an article and having anything to say in it is a quite different--"it exists" is neither necessary nor sufficient to be an article, and there's an unfortunate (IMO) tendency for editors to think the latter is true for chemicals. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JWBE: in view of DMacks info, why not just let PoF6 stand? It is not like we are saying it is super important.
Given the proliferation of DFT, we can expect that PoF6 is just the tip of a large iceberg. Possibly we should establish some policy for future articles on compounds that exist only in computers. I just dont know how to set the criteria for notability. That kind of policy debate that would be useful and would avoid some future problems. One minimal criterion could be that a theoretical compound is only notable if it has been the focused (not incidental) subject of a review or a book (i.e. WP:SECONDARY). --Smokefoot (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BrF5

Smokefoot,

Thanks for that reversion. This guy may be a bit more trouble than Plasmic. Check his contributions. Hes seems to take the most negative approach and does not cite or attempt to communicate. I am on a beach and not accompanied by sufficient resources to respond. Thanks. JSR (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tetrabutylammonium tribromide.svg

Hi Smokefoot. I noticed that you removed this image from tetrabutylammonium tribromide. Can you let me know what you think is wrong with it so that I can correct it. Thanks, -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed: I think the Br3- anion is linear like triiodide. In the drawing it was sort of bent. If I erred, I apologize. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're right - it should be linear. (X-ray example). I'll correct the image. Thanks for catching the error. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for the advice.

I am closely associated with Collum, but my main interest is improving the article. My perspective is likely already colored by what I do because I immediately thought of the complexity of LDA after reading the article. While I'll try not to be biased and include information which comes from a variety of authors.

There are a bunch of books on carbanion/enolate/lithium ion chemistry out there, so I will try to use those if the information I am looking to include can't be found in textbooks. Hopefully that's okay.

Thanks for the welcome. It was super polite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missphosgene (talk • contribs) 03:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Smokefoot. You have new messages at JohnSRoberts99's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to edit picture

Hello. Could I request a change in the picture File:LFTi(III).png to reflect the t1u orbitals as non-bonding and the p-orbitals of the transition metal removed from the picture? Latest developments in bonding theory suggest that p-orbitals of transition metals are not used in bonding in metal complexes. I've changed the ligand field theory article to reflect this, but the image doesn't describe the article well. I don't have an appropriate image editor, and since you're the original creator I thought I'd ask you. Could you do that?--Officer781 (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. You can see what I did to the article. The Landis book is one of many books on bonding in TM complexes. Objectively speaking, it seems, there is no reason to assume that their analysis is correct and all the others are wrong. We would be ill-serving readers to use introductory articles as a battleground for ideas, so let's avoid they're right vs they're wrong thing. As it stands LFT does not emphasize the role of p-orbitals, seems to merely acknowledge that they could do something. I am looking for that diagram, though.
BTW, you would help yourself, your cred, and others by describing yourself on a user page, even in a round about way. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that seems reasonable. and erm, nope, I'd prefer to keep a low profile on the internet. Thanks a lot!--Officer781 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you dont have to give clues about your identity, but it is helpful for others if mention your areas of interest or expertise. Then we know if we can consult you. Saying something about yourself also helps reassure the community about possible WP:COI. It seems that "Officer781" is pretty opaque, so I don't see any big risk. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Chemicals in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chemicals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pyrolysis

I am noting a concerted effort to put together this category by one user. Interestingly, there is one company in the category. Think there is any correlation?JSR (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I often invite new hyperactive editors to interact with the project page and encouraging them to ask before creating a lot of content. BTW, if you really want to get depressed look at carbon-neutral fuel.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very nice (Carbon neutral fuels). I'll ask the pyrolysis gentleman what is going on. If I don't see some more companies, I might remove the company from the category. It's kind of an artificial category anyway.JSR (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polyisoprene

Smokefoot, It was noted that

File:CisPolyisoprene.png
Chemical structure of cis-polyisoprene, the main constituent of natural rubber.

is not quite correct. The bottom right Carbon is missing a hydrogen.JSR (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's another one, but I can get it.JSR (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Strangeness candidate

You might know about this already, but if not see the history for Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion‎‎. Milton is about 90 and I don't think anyone is going to rope him in.JSR (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never figured that out - he's an old-timer around here, I think was involved in various disputes. His article on his book seems to be a clear case of WP:COI. But I think I'll leave it alone. He and I collaborated a long time ago on hydrodesulfurization (see File:HDS.png). Thanks for catching the problem with polyisoprene and please let me know if you see other issues. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources vs primary

Thankyou for your suggestion. I do my utmost to be impartial when sifting through the literature pertaining to a specific subject. I have no personal axes to grind as I have been retired from the scientific world for some years and have zero affiliations with it. However, I believe strongly that Wikipedia has the potential to be a superior, even superlative, reference and teaching tool that is of use not only to the general public but also to scientific professionals. In articles where I have cited primary sources, it is because suitable secondary sources were unavailable.

Perhaps I can make my point a different way: when I was still earning a living through research and teaching, I would often be highly frustrated in going to a secondary source such as the Merck Index, or the Dictionary of Organic Compounds, or Goodman and Gilman, or Sax, and not finding some small datum such as an LD50, ED50, or a pKa for a particular compound. Of course, there was Chemical Abstracts, and now SciFinder, but I'm sure you know how much fun digging through those databases is when looking up some "small" detail concerning a "common" compound. I've just spent weeks of my time reading through the (primary) literature on tetraethylammonium salts, in order to extract something useful, coherent, yet concise, and I haven't finished yet, but if you have some specific suggestions on secondary sources I could use, please let me know.Xprofj (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do not overinterpret my message, we agree generally. I also cite many primary references when needed. You are such a promising editor, I wanted to be sure that you got the message, even if sending it made me seem annoying.
Other comments: I do not consider Merck Index to be a very good source either. Secondary sources = Chem Reviews, Progress in ..., Annual Reviews of .... Most journals have periodic review articles. I forget the number, but I think that 10,000's of articles are published in the chemical literature annually. So to me, citing a particular journal article often risks being a form of WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, or WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia cannot hope to account for this literature, and we should not try. Many wanna-be academics and inexperienced editors like to cite the primary literature, I guess to show off (their lack of knowledge). I am often, it seems, dealing with some ego that is trying to promote their latest wonderful (primary) paper, not realizing that it is 0.00001 % of the annual flow of papers. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited resources - I'm doing the best I can with them, and trust that the iterative wiki process will correct any shortcomings in my contributions.Xprofj (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if I can help, because I still have full access online. Several editors here help each other, so just ask. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your offer of assistance. I may take you up on it shortly. Right now, I'm planning to beef up the entry for Reinecke's salt, to which you seem to have made contributions in the past. I therefore thought it important to point out that this is not some petty "retaliatory" gesture for a perceived slight, but merely a logical progression from my work on quaternary ammonium compounds: I got to the WP entry for this compound by accident, and decided it needed some improvements/updating. I realize that you don't know me, and are used to policing eccentricities and stupidities, so thought it best to make this clarification.Xprofj (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see what you have for Reinecke's salt. I am mainly an inorganic chemist and had heard vaguely that this salt was once useful counteranion, and I figured that organic chemists would be less comfortable with what it really is. My recollection is that it is barely used any more, but the article was viewed 500x last month. Good luck,--Smokefoot (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hair coloring

Hi Smokefoot, thanks for your input on my edits on the page. I agree that the sources I added might not be reliable enough to source scientific information as they aren't anywhere close to academic journals and the like, but surely they are appropriate for less technical topics? I've found both sources decently reliable and informative for lifestyle and fashion related topics. Thanks, -download ׀ talk 18:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thoughts when I was pressing the enter key, so I will try to undo my action. The problem with this topic is that it is both widely read but lacks routine sources that are not in magazines. Thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I do agree that they might not be exactly the best source for information on more technical information (including side effects), so I'll continue to try to add and replace them with more reliable sources. Thanks again for your input. -download ׀ talk 18:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirhenium_decacarbonyl

Maybe you can take a look when you have some time. I've tried to clean up a little. I removed an irrelevant drawing of Re2O7, and a questionable image of the D4h with bent carbonyls. I've got the cif for the D4d structure, and I'll ask Ben to update the image. I'll see if I can find one for D4h. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. I see you found the structure. I heard that someone has finally done the structure of a salt of [Re(CO)5]-, but not published it. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


You (don't) have mail

You would have mail but you haven't set an e-mail....seeing your report in the signpost reminded me that you created the F. Gordon A. Stone, which made me think, do I know you? I can't remember what, but something made me think I know you IRL, looking at my userpage, could you confirm this one way or another? Thanks --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We probably don't know each other. Thanks for taking the time to check. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinecke's Salt

Since I'm not sure if you read my long note on this topic because there was no acknowledgment, I'm re-posting it below. If you don't have time to deal with it, that's fine, but just let me know:Xprofj (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC) There are several major issues: a key paper for you to look at is: T. Peppel et al ZAAC 637 1314 (2011). This summarizes some of the more recent work with R'sS. The first point a reading of the intro raises is the empirical formula of the hydrate - it looks as though the stoichiometry is actually 3RS:2H2O, which seems to come from the x-ray in the BCSJ paper. I think it would be useful to cite this paper anyway, but can't open the e-version on account of my antique hardware and software, and didn't want to cite it without looking at it first. Another point is that Reinecke may not have been the first person to make RS. Poppel gives a ref to an old paper by Morland in the Quartely Journal of 1861, which I've been able to access and read. Morland made his compound by heating together ammonium "sulphocyanide" and potassium bichromate. He apparently did not find any K in his product, but those old elemental analyses tend to be unreliable - which brings me to point #3, that there is a "version" of RS in which the ammonium cation is replaced by K+ (this is mentioned in Merck's Index (10th Ed), without attribution, but also in JACS 80 3183 (1958)). Is it likely that Morton's cmpd is actually the K salt? Maybe a reading of Reinecke's original paper would clarify the matter, but I've been putting it off, since those old German papers tend towards verbosity, and I'm not very fluent. I'll take a peek in due course. If you want to help, you'll need to take a look at Morton's paper yourself, but it would be useful to track down a definitive original prep of the K salt. Moving on, another paper that would seem to be worth looking at is the one by Lodzinska and Ali in Pol. J. Chem. 57 1365 (1983). I haven't been able to access this. Be good if you could tell me what's in it. As for the "organic" angle on RS, it used to be commonly used (up through the 1970s, at least) by natural products chemists for precipitating naturally-occurring quaternary ammonium salts, and I do have some refs for that (indeed, have done it myself a long, long time ago), although not particularly good ones. There are also modern applications in mass spec, but I'm not sure how widely adopted these are. And the ZAAC paper lists a bunch of other applications that are self-explanatory, although it's difficult for me to assess just how important RS is in these, since they're outside my areas of expertise. Ironically, the application explored by Peppel et al, for the prep of Magnetic Ionic Liquids, doesn't seem to have been particularly fruitful, although I haven't tried to uncover any more recent literature in this field. I won't start on re-vamping the article until I hear back from you.Xprofj (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I like the idea of working on this, but have been distracted. So most of my recent Wikipedia editing has been more relaxation without straining brain cells which this stuff requires. Thanks for your patience. I got the ZAAC report and made the emergency change of the formula. I could not locate any on-line way to Pol. J Chem for 1983 - only a few years are online. You are probably correct, from my very brief readings, that Reinecke didnt discover this material. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess one can't fix everything all at the same time, and I am starting to feel a bit burned out. I'll make a few additions to the entry and leave the rest for another time or editor.Xprofj (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Smokefoot. I hope this is the right place to submit this reply. If not please clarify.


Smokefoot thanks for your help with the article “Lithium Metatungstate”. I have removed the material about the history and manufacturer of the compound which I hope makes it read a bit less like a tv commercial script. I believe that the patent application talks about the synthesis process so I shall review that and see if I can boil it down for presentation in the article. As far as solubility is concerned about all I know is that it is very soluble in water. I'll see if I can find figures for other solvents. Not being a chemist I created the article as a chemistry stub believing that someone with a chemistry background would jump in and help me out with things like a “chembox”. I guess I misunderstood the process in that regard. Oh, by the way the only connection I've ever had with the manufacturer is that I emailed them for just this kind of information (little help) as it is hard to find any information on it. With regard to the issue of whether this compound addresses a big need, note that as I said in the article, it was developed by BHP Billiton. BHP is and was foremost, a minerals company and this compound was engineered specifically to address the issues of safety and cost involved in the use of the primary compound in use at that time i.e. methylene iodide. I don’t have access to the figures but I’ll bet that the leading industrial use of diiodomethane (as opposed to iodoform) is probably heavy mineral separation especially in diamond exploration and I understand that the largest user of lithium metatungstate is the coal industry. In the minerals industry the compound diiodomethane is still mostly called methylene iodide. I shall resubmit the article in a few days after I’ve had a chance to do a little more research but perhaps I should consider a somewhat broader article on "Dense Media Separation" which is covered (but all too briefly) in Mineral Processing and leave this to the chemists. Thanks ulao. Further guidance much appreciated.



Ulao (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot Yes I am sure that you are correct as an industrial process both the diamond and coal industries ferrosilicon slurries are used for mineral separation but apparently a lot of laboratory work is also involved wherein it is simpler to use dense fluids rather than have to have to maintain a slurry at the proper constant s.g. I have run into similar problems involving pre-concentrated sediments in diamond exploration. These compounds are expensive ($$hundreds per pound) and some loss is unavoidable so they can't really be used on an industrial scale. Thanks so much for your help. I will send you the text as modified tomorrow.

Ulao (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half sandwich compound

How'd it turn out? Been really busy, haven't been keeping track. I looked at the page history and it seemed okay. Let me know if you need anything. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you are busy, a good sign. Things are under control on half sandwich compound, a little unbalanced and specialized for my tastes, but that's what students produce when their work is unsupervised.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Smokefoot it's beyond tomorrow but I had to attend a funeral out of town. I've been unable to find anything on solubility lithium tungstate except that it very soluble in water. The patent ( 5178848) was helpful with synthesis. As of now I have:

Lithium Metatungsnate


Lithium metatungstate is an inorganic white crystalline solid that is used to produce high density water solutions. Lithium metatungstate is normally procured as a water solution having a density of 2.95 grams per cubic centimeter but the density can easily be adjusted up or down. Like other high density fluids lithium metatungstate (LMT) is often used in the separation of minerals and other solids by specific gravity. Lithium metatungstate or aqueous solutions thereof can be prepared by forming a lithium monotungstate solution, removing sufficient lithium ions from the solution by ion exchange to form a dilute lithium metatungstate solution and concentrating the dilute solution. Lithium monotungstate solutions can be formed by dissolving tungsten trioxide in a lithium hydroxide solution.

LMT is considered by many a safe and effective alternative to traditional organic dense fluids such as methylene iodide or bromoform which have toxicity and stability issues. LMT can safely be used in an indoor environment without a fume hood though common sense safety precautions such as protective gloves and safety glasses should be used. The usual density of the solution at 2.95 g/cc can be adjusted to lower values by the addition of distilled water or raised by extraction of water by evaporation. The manufacturer states that the practical limit is about 3.0 at room temperature. Let me know what you think.


If you know someone who would like to help me with the chembox etc. I would be most grateful.

Ulao (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submited article on Lithium metatungstate

Hi Smokefoot I have edited the article on Lithium metatungstate here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lithium_Tungstate

I played with the siplified chembox and found it truly simple so even I could edit it. I have requested from the manufacturer some additional info like the density of the solid, melting point, boiling point, etc. but I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't respond. He seems to be kind of a one man operation and he's not a chemist and I think he's fed up with my information requests. Since this compound was created mainly for kind of a niche market there doesn't seem to have been much research into it's properties.

Let me know what you think and any changes you'd like.

Thanks for your help Smokefoot I owe ya.

Ulao (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dy11111

User:Dy11111 appears to be making unhelpful edits, mostly using multiple IPs which aren't too hard to recognize (I've listed a bunch at User talk:ChemNerd/temp). I notice that you have reverted some of edits, as have some other chemists. Everything he adds is unreferenced and where I try to verify his edits, I find them to be often wrong. I'm wondering if all his edits should just be reverted. If it's not too much to ask, can you take a look at my list of his IPs and examine his edits? I think he is trying to be helpful, but he may have insufficient competence/knowledge to be beneficial to the project and on balance he may be doing more harm than good. ChemNerd (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had not figured out - but I had seen the series of annoying and repetitive edits by a persistent sources that looks like similar IPs. I recommend that you notify the Chemistry project with a link to your list, maybe an administrator can be kicked into action. The few that we have a very busy, maybe you should consider applying for such? WIth best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Editor_review. ChemNerd (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHOX

Hi Smokefoot. I just wanted to let you know that I have moved the article you started at PHOX to (S)-iPr-PHOX, since the article seems to be about one particular PHOX ligand and we already have a general article about PHOX ligands at phosphinooxazolines. I then redirected PHOX to the general article. Is this OK with you? -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well coincidentally, I wrote a note to you about the very same topic. The main thing is that the articles be helpful to readers. I would never have encouraged the student project had I been aware of the overlap. There is also some article called PhoX. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allylcyclopentane

At this AFD you made a statement essentially withdrawing your nomination. Would you be willing to hold off a bit on that (striking that comment for now)? I'd like to see a few more chemists comment before the discussion is closed because I think the arguments to keep this article are weak. ChemNerd (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chromocene

Hi Smokefoot... Would you please explain this revert? The edit summary gives no reason for the action. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC) I hit the wrong key. Sorry about that. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad to hear that's all it was.  :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dicobalt octacarbonyl structural data

Looong ago in that article, you added a Co–Co bond distance of 2.52 Å based on doi:10.1107/S0365110X64001803. I don't have access to that full article, but the first-page preview says "intramolecular cobalt–cobalt vectors about 2.54 Å long" (emphasis mine in both cases). Could you re-check that ref and see if there is more detail later in the article to support one or the other value? Also, there's some disagreement in other published sources that claim support from this article about whether there actually is a Co–Co bond. Does this article actually mention this aspect, or does it just have coordinate data? DMacks (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2.54 vs 2.52 A - beats me. I saw the value on the first page that you noticed but the tabulated distances are 2.52 something (two molecules in asymmetric unit in this case). To quote from their discussion "Most of the bond angles and distances in Co2(CO)8 are typical of those found in other metal carbonylswith the possible exception of the cobalt-cobalt separation of 2.52 A." About whether there is a real M-M bond or the metals just happen to be close, there is a recent prominent paper on this topic "The occurrence and representation of three-centre two-electron bonds in covalent inorganic compounds" doi 10.1039/c2cc35304k that would recommend that we redraw several of our images, e.g. Fe2(CO)9, Cp2Fe2(CO)4 and I guess Co2(CO)8. For my part, I was going wait for the paper to settle in a bit. The presence of a M-M bond in these ligand-bridged species has long been disputed. Let me know if I can help further. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that and keeping up with the current understanding of this general topic. Does the non-bridged form in File:Co2(CO)8NoCo-Co.png have the correct Co geometry and Co–Co conformation (some sort of square–pyramidal metal, bonded at apex, rotated 45°)? That wouldn't be D3d as described in Dicobalt octacarbonyl#Synthesis, structure, properties and isn't one of the ones that ref 3 (Sweany & Brown, doi:10.1021/ic50168a037) thinks is likely by IR or that ref 6 (Garcia et al, doi:10.1039/b915083h) finds in their crystal. Also, the non-bridged structure in that image appears to have a strange geometry, with the central Co–C–Co–C ring approximately planar rather than butterflied. DMacks (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing those particular rotamers and geometries is beyond my ChemDrawing abilities. The butterflied aspect of Co2(mu-CO)2(CO)6 I could rectify, but the other parts are beyond me. If you have ChemDraw, give it a try.
Will do it tomorrow. My chemdraw can't do svg though (too old, can only do png), so I'll keep the files if you or someone with a newer version wants to export higher quality files. DMacks (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you let me know when your artwork is ready, let me know and I will turn on my email option (which I leave off for anonymity sake). Then I can switch them to .png. I will do the butterflying sometime this week (kinda weekend warrior here). --Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paraffin

After moving paraffin to paraffin wax, I converted paraffin into a disambiguation page to redirect readers to various related articles. Since disambiguation pages shouldn't have incoming links, I have been modifying those incoming links to direct to the appropriate articles. I've done several hundred, but there are still many more, some of which I'm not sure which meaning is intended. Any chance you could help out? Someone with different knowledge/experience may be able to handle ones that I'm unclear about. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, absolutely- I will join in tonight. I saw this morning that you were dealing with what appears to be an unanticipated consequence of my actions. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have found that using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups makes it go quickly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started to go through the list just to see what was out there. It is a tricky situation, because some cases paraffin is used to mean the wax, but most often, I am guessing, it is the Commonwealth term for kerosene. What do you think? --Smokefoot (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is the case. But there are quite a few situations where I simply can't discern which meaning is intended or whether there might be another meaning that Wikipedia isn't covering. Maybe the template {{Disambiguation needed}} can be placed on some of those to prod the article's author or other editors to solve it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was a slog. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urea color or the lack thereof

Re this old edit: Ah ... I had been told, or was under the impression, that the yellow color left by dried sweat on light clothing was crystallized urea, which I suppose sort of made sense because well, it's yellow like urine. So that's not what it is? What is it then? (And is the white substance left by evaporated sweat on dark clothing urea? Or the same thing?) Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urea is colorless, I am pretty sure. For chemistry article we often have well intentioned editors describing the colors of impure samples, whereas our articles on individual chemicals are focus usually on the pure material. Urine is yellow because of urobilin (I just looked it up, didnt know otherwise). I just couldnt speculate about why sweat stains are brownish, but often brown colors are the result of ferric compounds (not feces, where the color is from heme). I hope these comments help. I am not an expert - user SBHarris is more expert on biomedical themes.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The jar of commercial (lab-purity) urea I just checked does not appear yellow. It's not macroscopic crystals, so it appears white not "colorless" in the lay-language sense. DMacks (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was my recollection. Regarding your edit notes, I agree: guessing at the reason for the colored sweat stains is inapprop. I was going to let Daniel Case draw that conclusion. By the way, Merry Christmas to you and yours, --Smokefoot (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a different spelling

I redirected tributylphosphAne to tributylphosphIne! LOOK AT THE SPELLINGS BEFORE YOU DO ANY IDIOTIC THING!

12.48.120.132 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Almost every edit you make is mediocre, so I pulled the trigger too soon on this one. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2012"