User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2013

Your input would be appreciated

Hi. There is a dispute resolution case at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Peter_Proctor regarding the Peter Proctor article. I notice you participated in that article's Talk page. If you have some time, could you provide some input in the "discussion" section of the DRN case? Best, Chantoke (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Inactive for a while

Smokefoot will be inactive for a few weeks. Best wishes to all, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Peter Proctor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Dy11111#Stop_editing_Chemboxes

Hi there

Would you like to take a look, and comment? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Input needed on Nobel prize issue

Hi, if you have some time, could you provide some input at User_talk:Benjah-bmm27#Nobel_prize_controversy? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert to revision on Phenylmagnesium bromide

Why did you revert my edit on phenylmagnesium bromide? Please revert your revert but keep the solubility values as they are.

I just dont trust your edits and dont have the time to review them. Sorry, I hope you can get past this phase. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits such as this, where your first edit with this new IP address is to vandalize the talk page of someone who is trying to help you, makes it quite clear that you have no interest in working with others. The lack of trust others have in you is well earned. ChemNerd (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Propanethiol

I haven't found anything very notable about the compound but I felt that it deserves a page here since it helps to fill in the gaps. I am currently doing more research on the topic. It is basically a normal thiol but it has a slightly different production methods and uses. I feel like the page would be helpful from anyone researching the topic of thiols in general since it is a good example of one.

Jaksafin (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nickel tetracarbonyl

Dear Smokefoot, I have intensively studied the article on nickel-tetracarbonyl. To my understanding you have added the laporatory preparation from bis(cyclooctadiene)nickel Despite intensive search (even in CAS-SciFinder) I have not found any reference to this preparation. Could you please disclose your source for this reference. You may also contact me via email at: heinz.wanzenboeck@tuwien.ac.at Thanks for your kind assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.131.87.72 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

P. W. Jolly, a senior scientist from the MPI that discovered Ni(cod)₂, states "Ligand free zervalent nickel complexes such as Ni(allyl)₂, Ni(cod)2, and Ni(cdt)] ... react rapidly and quantitatively with carbon monoxide to give the tetracarbonyl." This source is now cited in the nickel carbonyl article. Page 4 of COMC I, as it is known in the business. Thanks for the tip. I would be interest to hear if the method works as advertized.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On primary an secondary sources

Dear Smokefoot, I undertsand your point and your ideals, but there are other things that should be considered:

• Wikipedia is amazing not only because it was 100% built by volunteers, but also because it was 98% built by hobbyists. If it had to rely on experts alone, it would have never happened. (That was the path that Citizendium choose; and while that effort too may have its value, it is nowhere as useful to so many people as Wikipedia, against all expectations, came to be.) That is not surprising: after a 14 hour day writing papers on his field, an expert rarely will have the energy to write more of the same for Wikipedia. (And then have to defend his contributions against hordes of stupid hobbyists.) Experts are also used to very different style and standards that are not suitable for Wikipedia, and are pressed to write about their field in other channels where they can earn academic points.
  • Agree. But there are skillful hobbyists that worry about this stuff, and then there are frantic, often wreckless writers of content... At least that is the way I see it.
• On the other hand, Wikipedia's model (which is arguably its key to success) allows articles to be written by many hands; so a good article (by Wikipedia standards) can be created with hobbyists doing 90% of the work, and then experts fixing the most glaring problems. I believe that this process has worked well in chemistry too, don't you think so?
• While it may be preferable to cite books than papers, the choice is usually between an article based on papers, or no article at all.
  • Then we have no choice, and I follow that pattern too.
• I can't speak for other hobbyists, but I usually read something like three or four papers for every paper that I cite; I read the papers that I cite with reasonable care; and only use the parts that I think I understand.
  • I am not worrying about you and most fellow editors.
• I may be a hobbyist in chemistry, but I have read quite a number of research papers in my own field, and I think I can distinguish obviously solid work from obvious junk in other fields too. Thus, for example, for the iron-hydrogen alloy article (that I am editing now), it is evident that the stuff is real, that the authors know what they are doing, and that the results are consistent across a dozen papers and 20 years.
  • Well I am definitely a hobbyist too, despite my professional attachments.
• On the other hand it is clear that may structural formulas for compounds extracted from plants, that I wrote articles about, are hanging from a thread. Ditto for some of the most elusive oxocarbons. Even so, I believe that it is better to include such findings in Wikipedia, with the reference and "they claim that...", than leave them out.
  • In the absence of reviews, of course.
• I don't see the relevance of WP:OR to the present discussion. That rule is about editors inserting their own speculations; something that I try not to do, and do not condone at all. (Although it may happen inadvertently as I try to summarize and rewrite for clarity).
  • I DO worry that what is being done with the hydrides verges on OR. Editors are deciding what species to elevate to a full article, and then wrap these articles with an armor coating of primary references. You realize that most metal oxides and sulfides, selenides come in nonstoichiometric forms? So we could see a splintering of these articles, which would wreck the reading experience. So for Vanadium(II) oxide, articles could be created on the stoichiometric form, the nonstoichiometric form, and the gaseous diatomic. Three articles. I think a reader should not need to hop from article to article, and that this topic could be handled concisely in one report.
  • Here is another angle, where I worry less, but still bothers me. The world now has hundreds of under-employed chemists doing DFT. Similarly, there are many groups searching for new species in their mass spectrometers, ion beams, or whatever. For some reason (maybe some psychological flaw of mine) I worry that each of these entities is going to end up with its own WIkipedia article. Maybe I should just relax, as you commented earlier. But conducting quality control of these articles becomes a real challenge.
• Of course we must strive to make the articles as correct as we can, but Wikipedia is not supposed fix the blunders of journal editors and reviewers. We are also expected *not* to take sides on disputes scientific or otherwise. Thus it would not be quite correct for us editors to omit some published finding because we think it is shoddy or wrong.
  • Often some extent what is right and wrong is a matter of judgement, but we both know that.
• Finally, on the reliability of books vs papers: Consider that anecdote about lead carbide by the wet route. I managed to trace that claim to a paper from the 1920s by an obscure French chemist, whose experiment apparently was never reproduced. But it made its way into a *book*. In my field, errors in books are common. Is chemistry different? (You are still using same atoms that Berzelius used, but publishers have changed a lot since then...)
  • "Here we disagree perhaps. You are arguing by anectdote. Yes, errors in secondary sources are common, but less so than in the primary literature. More important than errors, is notability. A lot of published work is not very good, and should be forgotten. Secondary sources keeps things in check.

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments. I must be having a bad weekend. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Re Talk:Flubber (material)

Your image looks good and is much more consistent with current literature on PVA gels, but you need a ^-1 in there somewhere. ;-) (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 20:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're concerned with the correctness of your mechanism you could always wait for another outside opinion. I think it's certainly better than the (mostly implausible) image that was there originally. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 02:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Zirconyl Chloride

Hi Smokefoot!

Thanks for correcting my work - it is surprising! I realize looking back over my references that they never specifically refer to a completely anhydrous form, although, from what I read on supplier websites (I know, a rather questionable source...) and in the Handbook of Inorganic Compounds (Dale L. Perry), it seems that some lesser hydrates exist as well. Also, thanks for keeping the ZrOCl₂*8H₂O formula - it's simpler for stoichiometry and mass calculations, even if it's structurally misleading. It might be appropriate to edit the chem box to reflect all of this as well... I think the CAS number may be different for the octahydrate specifically, as opposed to the just the ZrOCl₂ compound (or some lesser hydrate). Maybe include both (or multiple)? If you want me to keep working on it, I can, but you're definitely more qualified if you have the time, and I don't want to step on your toes. Let me know?

-Eriro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriro (talk • contribs) 08:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and additional advice - I will definitely focus on the octahydrate, stick to secondary sources, and try to keep my edits more bite-sized.

Thanks also for the advice on not editing Nick Robinson. I will definitely let audience members take it from here on out - especially as his Wikipedia entry is ultimately for their use and benefit. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me - it's so nice to get direct feedback and guidance from someone who's been at this a while!

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Undid revision

I undid my own revision to Dichlorosilane because it provided false information. 21:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC) -1YlGC6dsynvm

We need a packing diagram for benzene, which apparently is quite diff from naphthalene, not being layered, so I hear. More importantly, if you really want packing diagrams, then focus on species where there is something more than just van der Waals interactions. The structure of most molecular crystals (e.g. XeF₂) are often uninformative, since the structures are guided by weak interactions.

A big gap in our imagery is charge-transfer complexes, the premier member being TTF-TCNQ. We need an entire article on that charge transfer complex. The TTF's and TCNQ's stack in parallel piles, even though they have opposite charges. There are related things called Bechgaard salts, where we have nothing about the packing. These are like TTF-TCNQ but the TCNQ anions are replaced by simpler innocent anions. Magnus' green salt could be upgraded. So could Krogmann's salt. In the future you might be able to depict intercalation compounds. There are several variety of such species, all the way from graphite derivatives to DNA derivatives.

--Smokefoot (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I did put a packing diagram 4 benzene. 1YlGC6dsynvm (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There are already some packing diagrams at Commons:Category:Crystal structures of hydrocarbons that might interest you. --Ben (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User:1YlGC6dsynvm

You said on their talk page that they "risk getting blocked again". The account has never been blocked, do you know of this user being blocked under a previous account? SpinningSpark 17:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is User:Dy11111. Rifleman eventually blocked Dy11111, then a zillion IP edits of the same nature rained down, and I think Rifleman must have blocked these too. Its always the same drill - only occasionally malicious/spiteful, but persistently marginal and inappropriate. I have tried to advise this editor several times ... I just wish they would get a chemistry text and read something more than MSDS's.

In that case, since they have not been unblocked by any process, it is block evasion. Simple - they are gone. SpinningSpark 19:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Article: Metal - leftover edit

The first image currently in the article on "Metal" is an info-graphic about sphere packing that seems to be only related to a prior version of the "Structure" section. Your edit linked here is the last version in which the image on sphere-packing is used but without reference to anything in the article. I was about to remove it but did not know why it was there in the first place...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal&oldid=514210872

Current state of things: leading image on article Metal is orphaned content that does not reflect anything in the article. Current: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal&oldid=539162657

Mavaction (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobel talk page edits

Hi, I noticed you lined through many comments on the Nobel talk page, referencing a sock team. It seems that lining through comments doesn't help the clarity of the page - it's not at all obvious to readers what the lining represents. These are old comments; is there harm in leaving them as is? I haven't followed any of the relevant sock investigations, if that is the basis of the edits. Please advise. Thanks Span (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and your effort to clarify the page. I imagine the socking mediation has been pretty intense. The Nobel article has been stable for quite a while (aside from normal vandalism). I would have thought a section at the base of the talk page would have been enough to flag the socking issue. I tend to stick to the 'don't change talk page comments' guideline. But I was more enquiring as to the background of your changes rather than suggesting new approaches. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Silicone Nitride (Medical)

You have edited my contribution twice, I am trying to understand what I need to do to fix it. Is there any way that you can email me @ kaitlynbonitachristensen@gmail.com so we can further discuss the edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbird08 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a conflct of interest in this area. You are promoting work by yourself or your colleagues, and that behavior is discouraged, especially when one cite many related papers. Looks like you are using Wikipedia to popularize yourself vs helping provide readers with pertinent information. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Pass the beer nuts...

Hey Smokefoot, re this, let me tell ya, when it comes to bitchin' about advocates getting away with using article Talk pages as a soapbox under a thin veneer of a "helpful suggestion to improve the article!", I'm pulling up my barstool next to yours, handing my empty glass to the bartender for a refill, and joining in. There's rules against WP:SOAPBOX, but at the same time there's some tolerance for abuse of the rules, and there's also WP:AGF. Whattayagonnado, pass the peanuts... Zad68 13:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks, get a brewski for me too. I know that this conversation is going nowhere, my idea is unworkable and I dont even know why I left the note there. I am reassured that at least others understand the problem ... Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Three-center four-electron bond

An article that you have been involved in editing, Three-center four-electron bond , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Officer781 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopropanation

Regarding the new cyclopropane pages. I'm reluctant to move forward until V8rik is happy with the page content. This will be the third page-rebuild in a row that I've inadvertently proposed removing stuff he's written and I don't want to cause ill-feeling by just ignoring his objections. Project Osprey (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It is unlikely that you will make V8rik happy. He seems unhappy with much of what I do also. He seems unable to understand that his rather elaborate schemes and often narrow referencing are confusing to new-comers and puzzling to experts alike. So my advice is to proceed and do what you think is best for readers. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

new editors

I've noticed your edit summaries on Arsenic pentoxide and your comments on the new editor's talk page.

You said on March 30 to that editor: ... "we typically do things more incrementally to obtain some consensus." That is indeed, one way of doing things, and a good one. But it is not the only way. Another accepted practice here is WP:BRD (which, although only an essay, jhas very wide consensus) -- it is considered perfectly ok to boldly make such changes as a person acting in good faith individually think desirable, as long as the material is sourced, pertinent, and not a copyright violation; it is also perfectly ok for someone to then revert the changes; but since nobody owns a page, no matter how long they have been working on it or how expert they are, what should then be done is to discuss the changes on the article talk page. You did notify the other editor on his talk page, but it seems your notice had the very undesirable effect of scaring them away from further participation. I am trying to explain and apologize to him, so he returns to participation here

• In WP-Chem we see almost zero post-homework participation. I wish it were different too.

You said also, that when a major addition is made by a new editor, that it was usually a problem. This also is not the case. It is very frequent and very appropriate for new editors to come and substantially improve article. A major deletion by a new editor is much more likely to be a problem, as is a major replacement of content. We very badly need people to work on scientific and technical articles, and newcomers may have a better idea than those of us who have worked on it a long time, however expert.

• Re the comment: 'We very badly need people to work on scientific and technical articles' This statement sounds plausible but is untrue for chemistry. The chemistry articles are at a high level and this situation is the challenge for the homeworkers: one virtually needs an advanced degree or direct work experience (i.e. work in a chemical plant) to improve many articles these days. The situation surprises me, but that is the way it is often. Our readability/accessibility is uneven, but homeworkers are unprepared to deal with that pervasive problem.
• Large edits from classes typically ARE a problem in Wikipedia Chem where we deal with rather settled factual knowledge, which is often stated concisely in mature articles. Homework assignees do not have the luxury of our time or our knowledge and are under consider pressure to contribute bulk. I am an early leader and advocate of having students contribute to Wikipedia in Chemistry. Hundreds of articles and improvements have originated from students under my supervision (but they stop as soon as the class ceases). I wish that you were correct and I understand your instincts, but the record is otherwise.

I now see that the edits were, as you now know also, done as part of the Wikipedia education program, and we encourage not discourage suitable participation. I wouldn't have referred to such a major contribution--a contribution considerably better than usual for the ed program-- as "homework". The edits made were unexceptional--I probably agree with you that most of it wasn't needed on that page, but the view of an established editor in such matters is not necessarily better than that of a beginner: nobody owns an article. I would certainly as an admin and a long term ambassador in the program (though not for this course) have discussed it before, rather than after reverting it. It is usual to be a little more tolerant of edits from the program, at least to the point of retaining material until it has been discussed, if it the material does not violate any policy but you merely think it should be done otherwise. That's how we teach people. In the end, of course, they must meet the same standard as other edits.

• the contribution was relatively weak by our standards, and the sources were poor and narrow, I recall. The content was largely inappropriate per our customs as described in the Chem MOS. In particularly, we do not elaborate on routine toxicity symptoms especially when we have a targeted tox article, as in the case of arsenic poisoning. Also technically the contribution was not even allowable as the editor was representing a group.

And as an editor, I would not have done what you did: reverted, and then restored a very small portion. That's not a friendly way of treating any good faith contributions. Rather, I would have removed what didn't belong, and I would have done it more carefully--Rather than discuss the actual changes here in detail, I've started such a discussion on the article talk page. I've also notified the other editor. The course isn't part of the US educational program, so I don't know how it's organized, but I'll see if I can find its class page either here or on the deWP, & see if it has an ambassador. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

US vs Netherlands or anywhere is irrelevant in this case.

I wish that the record were different with homeworkers in Wikipedia Chem. But if you chose to hang around Chem at semester's ends, you will see a high rejection/revert rate of low grade contributions forced onto Wikipedia by students overseen by inattentive teachers. These teachers do not edit otherwise and barely participate when the homework is due. My guess is that even the teachers (possibly often teaching assistants) are not highly confident of their knowledge. The students never return, whether we embrace them or not.

I guess that the main point is to thank you for being careful to watch for this sort of thing. If you have an influence on the Wiki eductionational program, I would encourage the following:

• 1) leave a note on target project about intentions (done occasionally): e.g. "We intend to edit the follow articles with the following aspects being the focus ..
• 2) respond to (and HEED) comments by project experienced participants (this nonresponsiveness by the supervising teacher is the MAIN problem).
• 3) make incremental changes.

I am sympathetic with your main point - that editor recruitment begins with not biting newbies. I know that Wiki-Central has been exhorting editors on that theme. Those sentiments are laudable so far as they go, but an editors' main priority is article quality. Wiki Chem has a high standard. I confess to being picky and occassionally contrarian, so your insights are welcome. Best wishes and feel free to continue the conversation, --Smokefoot (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• • I agree actually with your two main points. The Chem area is much more competently done that almost any other; in fact, I usually give it as an example of what Wikiprojects ought to be doing. The US program is the only program I have any potential effect on, and I try very much to do so, mostly off-wiki; I think much of the work in the US program at least is of low quality, and much closer supervision is needed. I've discussed the general issue at my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing section headers

Hi Smokefoot. I undid your edit to the section header at Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. It's not that I disagree with the sense of your change, but it's unnecessary, and it can have a couple of unintended consequences that are inconvenient or unpleasant. The unpleasant one is that it can provoke needless edit warring; there's nothing to prevent you from changing it once, and then someone who disagrees with you from changing back (or to a third header), and so on.

The inconvenient one is that it breaks the automatic section link created in user's edit summaries The edit summary in a user's contribution history will still point to the old section name, so it makes it more difficult for a user to go back to the same section in the future—both because the section link in that user's contribution history no longer points to a 'live' destination, and because the user may not recognize the old section under a new name should it appear on the user's watchlist. Unless a section header seriously violates our policies on BLPs or personal attacks, it's generally best to leave well enough alone and to instead respond in the section's body.

In this particular instance, it's probably best not to engage more than the absolute minimum necessary with the person who started the thread. At best, it's another crank conspiracy-pusher who isn't worth more than the barest minimum of our time to respond to; at worst, it's the same sockpuppeteer who provoked the blacklisting of FluorideAlert in the first place. Either way – and I know how tempting it is, and how temporarily satisfying it can be – we don't benefit from doing anything that might be taken as winding up the newly-arrived editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, got it. Good points, but I need to think about your suggestion, although I agree with its spirit. My goal is to minimize the use of section headers as a mechanism for soapboxing. My sense is that groups that disagree with the tone of an article seek to amass section headers as evidence that their cause is being suppressed as only the headers show up when one reviews the table of contents. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, editors who work on conspiracy-theory and fringe-medicine articles are also used to seeing this sort of thing, and lend it just exactly as much credence as it deserves. As soon as an individual pulls out any or all of "conspiracy", "coverup", "censorship", or "thought police" in their comment or section header, it becomes readily apparent how their comments should be read; no further editorial comment on our part is really needed.

If someone is trying to use headers for soapboxing, the first and most effective step is often to deprive them, as much as possible, of the attention they're looking for. Respond helpfully, but as concisely as possible to any reasonable or semi-reasonable questions, but don't get sucked in to extraneous debate. Gentle (and eventually not-so-gentle) reminders that talk pages are for discussing specific suggestions for article improvement – and not just general forums – can help. If header-soapboxing continues, then demoting second-level headers to third-level headers can help. If it gets extreme, then sections can be collapsed/hatted, or moved to the talk page archives. Right now, though, it's just a one-off. We don't want to encourage debate in section headers by rising to the bait and engaging in it ourselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well said. I am familiar with wiki-ettiquite of tip-toeing around the sensitivities of conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, it is useful to remind them periodically that their sources are inferior and their leaders are substandard. I realize that such comments do not register 95% of the time, but I am aiming for the 5% that they might say, 'you know you're right Fluoride Action Network is run by a bunch of 3rd-rate losers.' My sense is that many in this antifluoride area are embarrassed that FAN is a literally a mom and pop run group. My hope is that this mortification will lead them to be more judicious with their comments. But maybe I am deluding myself.

I will take your advice and be even more cautious with anything that looks like baiting. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that there's anything particularly wrong with your comment in the body of the thread; it's a useful bit of contextual information for any editors (like me) who didn't know who they (FAN) were on sight. I just don't want to encourage conspiracy theorists to fight a battle in the section headers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Peter Proctor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

NYT as a source of info

For what its worth, my feeling is that NYT is not a reliable source of technical or medical information. About pop stars, clothing fashions, and politicians, NYT is great, but in the sciences or in technical books, it would be very weird to cite NYT.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In most instances an underlying journal article is being used by the reporter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to cite the underlying article vs a newspaper.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, but often the newspaper article is quite vague as to its title or even the name of the journal. To say nothing of the labor involved with a dozen or so authors. And we, usually, don't have subscriptions to the journals so the newspapers, which do have subscriptions, are often better sources, for that purposes. Nature has a "news" section which can be useful. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Roxarsone

Hey, I wanted to thank you for your most recent edit to the roxarsone article. I think you really improved the organization. The writing is clearer now. Cheers! Tjss(Talk) 21:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Samarium(III) chloride may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gadolinium(III) chloride may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mercury(II) thiocyanate may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nascent hydrogen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Formic acid may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rare earth halides

Hey, I've noticed that you've started editing pages on various rare earth chlorides. I've been meaning to do some work on these for some time as I've made and used quite a few of them. I'm afraid the preparative method you've been copying across is not entirely correct, as it makes no mention of HCl. The most popular paper is here (DOI:10.1016/0022-1902(62)80034-7). Basically you dissolve the Ln₂O₃ in excess aqueous HCl, to produce hydrated LnCl₃·nH₂O. This can be rendered anhydrous by evaporation to dryness in the presence of NH₄Cl, with the mixture then being purified by sublimation of NH₄Cl at 300-500°C. The presence of NH₄Cl is required, as the hydrated ScCl₃·nH₂O would otherwise form a mixed oxychloride upon drying. I'll try to sort these pages out over the next couple of days. I'm just letting you know so we don't get our edits in a tangle. Project Osprey (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was just about to sweep across the LnCl₃ series, so you caught me just in time. Meyer (author) and Corbett (checker of the prep) are super-stars in the area, so I have faith in their method in Inorganic Syntheses, published in 1989, well after the earlier reports on similar routes (WP:COI note: I am professionally associated with Inorg Syn). Inorg Syn tends to digest previous methods and produce the best one, although it is focused on inorganic approaches (i.e. an inorganicker might prefer heating solids vs a solution approach). Meyer also describes the modification that you mention, which is basically the same just "wetter". So I think that we can tweak the description that I have been adding by saying that one can do this in soln followed by pyrolysis. My inclination would be to not cite the old JINC papers (e.g. Carter et al) and to cite Meyer and the Hermann book (which I have not seen yet). PS Not sure about the meaning of your comment "as it makes no mention of HCl". --Smokefoot (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems a sensible solution. I just thought I'd suggest a method that I knew worked.Project Osprey (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I revised europium trichloride, so re-modify that part as you wish. We want consensus on our wording since we are about to propagate that wording in ca. 16 articles. BTW, Meyer points out that the ammonium chlorometallate intermediate is (NH₄)₂LnCl₅ for La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd but (NH₄)₃LnCl₆ for Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu as well as Y and Sc. I am less able to help with these projects during the week, so there is no rush.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that series is right? It would seem to go against the lanthanide contraction, as it shows smaller ions with greater levels of coordination... that said, I suppose as they're all 3⁺ ions their lewis acidity will increase across the series. The latter point is probably the controling one, after all the ions are all large enough to support a LnCl₆ structure. I'll give the wording some thought today. Another option might be to create a general page on 'rare earth halides' which would allow a discussion of the changes across the series. Project Osprey (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont know what the coordination number is for the penta- and hexachlorides but it is likely that these compounds are not penta- and hexacoordinate. So dont confuse stoichiometry with coordination number. As for starting a page, you are welcome to but for my money, it is probably a better investment to focus on upgrading those that we have. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've had a play with the prep, I know you're not a fan of primary literature but the paper for the wet method has a lot of citations which I feel lends it some authority. Feel free to change it if you don't like it though. Project Osprey (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

COI

I've cited all of the sources, and everything is from neutral point of view, just stating press release facts as noted from citations per the policy of this website to update the page with current information from recent press outings and releases noting sale of part of the company. This brings the page current with important information that is necessary for anyone using this page for review or citations.. I have requested a review and removal the COI from the mcgraw-hill page.

Regards. Rustysurfing07

Thanks for taking that action. I was not sure how to handle the situation but thought it was important that somewhere in the edit record that we noted that M-H employees revised much of the article about M-H. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

apologies for the miscommunication. I just wanted you to know I appreciate the information. I just wanted to update our company name and basic information now that we have restructured the company, so that the wikipage was updated properly. Thanks again! - Rustysurfing07 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Smokefoot, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Chemicalsand Chemistry talk page that you are an active member of both projects. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Octahedral cluster may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catalytic oxidation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to CIDNP may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bridging ligand may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bridging ligand may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Methylene blue

Hello. The "controversy" was left in when I made my update to the clinical trial info. because I had not seen any info. about it but that does not mean that there is no controversy. I felt uncomfortable taking it out entirely but I wanted to get rid of the citation needed box. I guess I'll go look for something.
But the part that you deleted was not "news", feel free to re-word it if you like or find another cite in the many that are available, but under a heading of, "clinical trials", I think that a sentence that speaks to being in Phase III, and changing the name of the drug, with a link to more info. where it explains why the new drug is being used in Phase III, is relevant. I re-added my sentence as it was and I hope that you will reconsider your edit in this matter-thanks
TeeVeeed (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to your edit and statement that "we usually dont report on US television episodes in chem articles", the problem is that the section is already there. To delete the info. that i added is arbitrary as far as I can tell. I have posted a question on the article's talk page.
TeeVeeed (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I was moving fast. I think that the entire section should be moved. Its inclusion seems, well trivial. The entire planet is made of chemical compounds, and we cannot include every mention of them in US or any TV show. According to Chemical Abstracts, 21503 technical articles have been written on methylene blue. We cite a tiny fraction of these articles, why would a US TV show trump some technical article discussing discovery, uses, applications, environmental effects? --Smokefoot (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Userpage barnstar

		The Userpage Barnstar
		In recognition of your user page. Lot of good insights and very readable. TCO (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I really appreciate the gesture. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ammonium iron(II) sulfate

Hi Smokefoot, yes I agree that the use as a catalyst is pretty low down on the applications worth including in Ammonium iron(II) sulfate. and you are welcome to work on adding industrial uses. There are suggestions around that it is used for medical use too, but I have not yet got any reliable reference for that. Some called it vitafer, but that tablet seems to be a different composition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Methyl radical

Hi. Could you have a look at Methyl radical, especially the intro which has a number of dubious statements, such as the claim that neutral CH₃ is a strong Lewis acid. I tried to explain the errors on the talk page, but another editor does not agree so I think that a third opinion would be useful. Dirac66 (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We both understand that there is a problem. Many others also recognize this problem. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Biodiesel

Hi Smokefoot, the article Biodiesel#Historical background mentions the chemists E. Duffy and J. Patrick as the first who conducted the transesterification of vegetable oils, which is consistent with related literature (i.e. Scholar or Google). However, none of the articles cites the original work. The only work I found that comes close is: Patrick Duffy: XVIII. On certain isomeric transformations of fats. In: Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society of London. 5, 1853, p. 197, doi:10.1039/QJ8530500197, but this article is mainly on the melting point of stearic acid. Do you have any idea where I could find this Duffy/Patrick article or who conducted the first transesterification? Any clue is welcome. -- Linksfuss (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC) PS: I found it meanwhile; it is indeed Patrick Duffy: XXV. On the constitution of stearine. In: Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society of London. 5, 1853, p. 303, doi:10.1039/QJ8530500303. It seems, that a lot of people (incl me on the German Wikipedia) just copied one from another on this references. -- Linksfuss (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New fuchsine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''New fuchsine''', (from [[German (language)|German]] "fuchs", ''fox'') is an organic compound]] with the [[chemical formula|formula]] [(CH3N(H)CH3C_CH₃)₃C]Cl. It

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tuck-in complex may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• are recognized, e.g. in the dihydride diuranium complex [(C₅Me₅)₃(η⁷-C₅Me₃(CH₂)U₂H₂].<ref>Elizabeth

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethanol

Re your recent revision, thank you. Sandcherry (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Make that ethylene.

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tris(pentafluorophenyl)boron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• :(C₆F₅)₃B + C₆F₅Li → Li[(C₆F₅)₄B

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hydration reaction may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Several billion kilograms of [[ethylene glycol]] are produced annually by the hydration of [[ethylene oxide]:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acetophenone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[formaldehyde]] and base. The resulting polymers are conventionally described with the formula [(C₆H₅C(O)CH]_x(CH₂)_x}_n, resulting from [[aldol condensation]]. These substances are components of [[coating]]
• The [[LD50]] is 815 mg/kg (oral, rats).ref name=Ullmann/> Acetophenone is currently listed as a Group D [[carcinogen]] (Not Classifiable as to Human

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phosphonate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Glyphosate]], the herbicide "Roundup", and [[Ethephon]], a widely used plant growth regulator). [Bisphosphonates]] are popular drugs for treatment of [[osteoporosis]].
• which are useful as complexants. One example is the industrial preparation of nitrilotris(methylenephosphonic acid:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Germanane may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• represent a new generation of semiconductors with potential applications in [computer chip]]s and [[solar cells]].<ref name=Bianco2013>{{cite doi|10.1021/nn4009406}}</ref> Germanane’s

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Diketopiperazine‎s

Sorry if I lost any of your edits to this article (and the 2,5- isomer)...had to do a bunch of histsplit/merging. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I saw that you were doing a lot of work, which is much appreciated. I need to replace the graphic in Diketopiperazine to a set of images of the three isomers, because it implies a conversion which does not happen. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Smokefoot. You have new messages at Talk:Triethylaluminium.
Message added 04:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Leyo 04:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vanadium(V) oxide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (CH₃)₂ + 3 O₂ → C₆H₄(CO)₂)O + 6 H<small>2</small>O

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vanadium carbide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• metal-carbide known.<ref>http://www.ppm.bc.ca/Cermet_Carbide_Nitride_Powder_Products.html</ref>). It is of interest because it is prevalent in vanadium metal and alloys.<ref name=Ullmann>Günter

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polyvinyl alcohol may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• not to be confused with [[polyvinyl acetate]], a popular wood glue). It has the idealized formula (CH₂CH(OH)_n. It is used in papermaking, textiles, and various coatings. It
• :(CH₂CH(OAc)_n + C₂H₅OH → (CH₂CH(OH)_n + C₂H₅OAc

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nitroguanidine may have broken the syntax by modifying 5 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Nitroguanidine''' is an [[organic compound]] with the formula [[(NH₂)₂CN(H)ONO₂. It is a colorless, crystalline solid. It melts at
• :[[C(NH₂)₃]NO₃ → [[(NH₂)₂CN(H)ONO₂ + H₂O

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vanadium bromoperoxidase may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• brominates the organic substrates. The bromoperoxidase produce an estimated 1–2 million tons of [[bromoform] and 56,000 tons of [[bromomethane]] annually.<ref>Gordon W. Gribble “The diversity of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chloride peroxidase may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• products|first = Alison|last = Butler|coauthors = Carter-Franklin, Jayme N.|pages = 180–8}} (this paper also discussed chloroperoxidases.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Molybdenum bronze may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• :[[File:KMoO3Bronze.JPG|thumb|Crystals of K_0.28MoO₃}, also called "potassium-molybdenum blue bronze".]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sulfoxides

Thank you for welcoming me. Here is an attempt of me to represent the structural formula of sulfoxides pyramidal (File:Sulfoxide pyramidal.svg). I am pleased about further suggestions and criticism. MaChe (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sulfoxides are not planar and this image does not show the pyramidal geometry. Here is an example: File:Monophosphan.svg. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Green chemistry

It looks like the edit you (and now I, several times) undid is probably part of a years'-old sockfarm relating to Kumar. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that editors here spend a fair bit of time reverting apparent self-citations work. I just wish a fraction of these self-citers would take a moment to enhance content in a way that does not prop up their reputations. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Where is the book on interpnictogens?"

I don't think there is one. Holleman & Wiberg name-drops them (as the "interpentels") when comparing the interchalcogens to the interhalogens and the interpnictogens, and User:Whoop whoop pull up decided that if "interpnictogen" was redlinked, an article should be created on it. But it is really complete OR and the category is not really a very useful one (N and P are not too electronegative, so all those with lighter pnictogens end up covalent and all those with heavier pnictogens only end up semimetallic). Leaning delete as someone's OR and synthesis. Double sharp (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Know anything about CrF₆ and PoF₆? Recent papers seem to deny the existence of the former, but haven't found anything new on the latter (and our article takes the stance that it exists). Double sharp (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I do not understand why editors are starting articles without a big review or a book on the subject. Sorry, I dont know much about the two hexafluorides that you are asking about. I could check CAS this AM. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Another compound whose section implies more than it should is IBr₅. With the small EN difference between I and Br of 0.30 and absence of recent sources saying it exists I'm not even convinced we should list it in the main interhalogens page with all the other certainly known interhalogens. We do not do this for the practically-unattested-seriously ternary interhalogens IFCl
₂ and IF
₂Cl (Greenwood and a few other articles and books mention them, but they all seem to be quoting each other!); why is this different? Double sharp (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I will send three of 8 hits from Chem Abs. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clomazone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• behaviour of new herbicides in crop plants" Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes (2002, vol. 54, 193-203.</ref> <ref> Gara, Pedro M. David; Rosso, Janina A.; Martin, Marcela V.;

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chalcogenide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the chalcogenide is often viewed as a dianion. In fact, transition metal chalcogenides are highly [[covalent], not ionic, as indicated by their semiconducting properties.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henri B. Kagan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• was the development of C₂-symmetric ligands, e.g., [[DIOP]] for asymmetric catalysis]].<ref>{{cite journal

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your edit to Diisopropylamine! ChaseAm (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Silicon dioxide may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• silica.<ref name="Greenwood"/> Ideallized equation involving a trisilicate and sulfuric acid]] is shown:
• SiO₂, moreso than almost any material, exists in many crystalline forms (called [[polymorph]]s.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Germanium dioxide may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• GeO₂ has the same structure as β-quartz, germanium having [[coordination number]] 4). Tetragonal GeO₂ (the mineral [[argutite]]) has the [[rutile]]-like structure seen in [
• ]-like structure seen in [[stishovite]]. In this motif, germanium has the coordination number 6). An amorphous (glassy) form of GeO₂ is similar to [[fused silica]].<ref name = "

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diol may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• be prepared by hydration of α,β-unsaturated ketones and aldehydes. The resulting keto-alcohol is [[hydrogenated. Another route involves the [[hydroformylation]] of epoxides followed by

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Titanium(III) bromide may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• There are two polymorph]]s, each adopting a layered structure typical of metal trihalides.<ref name=Troy>Troyanov, S. I.;

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gadolinium(III) oxide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• number of 6 but with different coordination geometries. The second polymorph is [[monoclinic]] ([[Pearson symbol]] mS30, [[space group]] C2/m, No. 12.<ref>Wells A.F. (1984) ''Structural Inorganic

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tris(acetonitrile)cyclopentadienylruthenium hexafluorophosphate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• synthesized in two steps from the benzene complex. In the first step, the cyclopentadienyl ligand (Cp^- is installed using [[cyclopentadienylthallium]]:<ref name=Mann/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hexane-2,5-dione may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Hexane-2,5-dione''' is an [[organic compound]] with the formula [[carbon|CH₃]]COCH2]₂. It is classified as a [[diketone]]. It is a toxic [[metabolite]] of [[hexane]].<ref>[
• ==Symptoms{==

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ullmann and methanol

If I recall correctly, you often use Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry as a reference. If you have access to it, could you please check to see if the content at methanol is copied directly from this page? The three subsections in methanol under "Storage and transportation" turn up in a Google search and match word-for-word the Ullmann website. But even though Google turns up a match, the linked page won't let me access the content to confirm the match. So if you could check, that would be helpful. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Good eye. I had seen similar close versions from Ullmann cropping up in articles, I attributed it to an unsupervise ChemE class project. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking for me! -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sodium nitroprusside

I did ask somebody else, an admin too Jmh649 see the sodium nitroprusside section. He agreed with me and hence I did it and seeing how large the article would be if we were to put the two articles together into a single article like you wish I felt a new article was warranted. Fuse809 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a process here called achieving consensus. Conversations are held on the talk page of the affected article. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogenation is important

Hi talk:Smokefoot, thanks for your message. I'm still new to this process, so I apologize if undoing your edit instead of discussing it caused any offense. I'm currently contributing to the page as part of a project for an academic course; my classmates and I are each required to contribute to an assigned article. A significant part of our grade depends on whether the introduction "describes the subject to someone with limited chemistry knowledge." Therefore I believe that a brief passage introducing the field is something that should be included, since it provides clear examples that inform anyone who is not a chemist that the research area is important. Would it be more appropriate to put it at the top instead of giving it its own section?

After viewing your contribution history, it's clear to me that you're a very active member of the community, which I can appreciate. In fact, I see you've recently made constructive contributions to some of my classmates' assigned pages as well. If I may ask a small favor, I'd like to have the opportunity to finish my contribution and have it evaluated by my instructor; afterwards I would be more than happy to work with you in order to make further improvements. I understand that Wikipedia is inherently collaborative, so I look forward to your response. Best, Jsphere256 (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) One major difference between wikipedia and other publications is that each article focuses on its own topic, not "everything related to it" the way other essays or term-papers might be organized. Instead, articles link to each other, and provide just enough detail on adjacent topics as is relevant to the topic at hand. That is, a topic about a specific organometallic reductive hydrogenation catalyst shouldn't have substantial detail about organometallics, reduction, hydrogenation, or catalysts in general except as they relate to the topic of this specific chemical. That is, the article on the shvo catalyst shouldn't provide full low-level and detail background at a "no chemistry level" for every underlying concept, but instead mention their relevant aspect and leave discussion of their fundamentals to their own articles. The introduction of an article should be accessible by non-experts, but not every inner section. DMacks (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for looking over the Crossover experiments(chemistry) article so that it could be approved and created! I think it's currently being moved to the right place, so that shouldn't be an issue either :) Thanks again. Akbartholomew (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Samarium (153Sm) lexidronam

You have completely removed my contributions to this page twice, and I would like to know why. I have simply added information on the clinical trials and side effects, which I obtained from official FDA information. I am being graded on this wikipedia page, and would appreciate it if you would stop blindly removing the information I post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkelley92 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all thanks for the note. Wikipedia is an interactive medium and lots of people are learning about it and how to use it. I felt (and feel) that your content, while well-intentioned, is inappropriate. Wikipedia has a very high standard for reporting medical information, as I conveyed in my edit summary. The standard is called WP:MEDRS. .com and normal journal sources are not good enough. Wikipedia is not an arm of any country, so we usually steer away from governmental reports - even from the mighty U.S.A. Finally, Wikipedia is not an advice column or a user manual, and your contributions clearly seem to be procedural. See WP:NOTMANUAL. Comments welcome, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with removal of the primary studies. WP:MEDRS is important. Many students have trouble with this--the difference between the primary research and the secondary reviews of them is possibly one of the most important to learn in life and in academia. Unless you yourself are a trained expert professional in the field, you don't want to rely on primary research until someone who is helps figure out if the study is even valid at all. DMacks (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Organolithium reagents

Thank you so much for your message. I am not an experienced wikipedia contributor, and this was a challenging assignment. The article has benefited a lot from your editing, making it more concise and easier to read, thanks again for these corrections. I went back to the earlier sections and re-edited a few things I thought deserved further explanation, as they are currently being debated and researched in the field. As always, your opinion and input is valuable to me as a learning student, and much appreciated.Efanmm (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Efanmm

Tris(acetonitrile)cyclopentadienylruthenium hexafluorophosphate preparation

In your cleanup of this article, the Preparation reaction equations use titanium but the description mentions thallium. I think thallium is correct. But it's also a three-step process, for which Gill & Mann just use someone else's work for the TlCp reaction (which we should probably cite), then take that product and do an anion-exchange as a separate step before the photolysis/MeCN-exchange. DMacks (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. my eyesight is insufficient to distinguish Ti from Tl. Thanks for catching that. You might be right that the main work of Mann and Gill is the photolysis of the benzene complex. Others surely made the [CpRuC6H6]+ thing before them. The main problem with the article is the cumbersome name which could interfere with searches.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

one-electron reductions

Mergers will one day be the death of wikipedia. I would except a merger between Solvated electron and Electride that you were discussing on strangely enough the one-electron reduction page, hence a lack of reply on my part. Its merger with radical comes out of the blue and has not been discussed. I you have to merge everything with everything one-electron reduction should belong with organic reduction. Ideally none of the discussed articles should be merged, simply for readability and logic. V8rik (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)