User talk:Smokefoot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, I appreciate your edits but can you please hold off for 1 week? This is a graded assignment and just need you to wait until the quarter is over. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Liao Sax (talkcontribs) 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

'Bold text For older material, see

Contents

January 2014[edit]

Hi there - thanks for taking out the edits on Iodine value I had made on my tablet - I guess I thought I would get back quicker to do the things I had tried to suggest. Could you have a look and see what you think of the next version - there were some things in my edit which I can only see as being worth keeping such as the spelling of organoi(o)dine compounds - I could not see what the weak chemistry was you mentioned in the reversion comment. I am a high school chemistry teacher trying to make this clear enough for my students to understand Skihatboatbike (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Disodium phosphate 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:
  • used as a saline laxative to treat constipation or to clean the bowel before a colonoscopy.<ref>[http://wishardhealth.kramesonline.com/Medications/26,1558</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sodium aluminium phosphate 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:
  • of phosphate to aluminium to sodium. Additionally an SAlP of ill-defined stoichiometry is used (Na<sub>x</sub>Al<sub>y</sub>(PO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>z</sub> (CAS# 7785-88-8).<ref>Lucina E. Lampila "

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sodium phosphates 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:
  • e.g. [[sodium triphosphate]]. Polymeric sodium phosphates are also well known, these include [[Kurrol’s salt, Graham’s salt, and Maddrell’s salt. Cyclic phosphates are called metaphosphates,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sodium phosphates 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:
  • Three families of sodium monophosphates are common, those derived from PO<sub>4</sub><sup>3-</sup>), hydrogen phosphate (HPO<sub>4</sub><sup>-</sup>), and dihydrogenphosphate (H<sub>2</sub>PO<sub>4</

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polymethylhydrosiloxane 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:
  • 178873-19-3, and 63148-57-2. These include the tetramer ((MeSiHO)<sub>4</sub>), copolymers of poly(dimethysiloxane and poly(methylhydrosiloxane), and trimethylsilyl terminated materials.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tributyltin hydride 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:
  • : 2"(MeSiH)" + (Bu<sub>3</sub>Sn)<sub>2</sub>O → "(Me<sub>2</sub>Si<sub>2</sub>O" + 2 Bu<sub>3</sub>SnH

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Baking powder 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:
  • }</ref> The most important additive is [[cornstarch]], although [[potato starch]] may also be used).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ammonium persulfate 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:
  • are mainly used as [[radical initiator]]s in the [[polymerization]] of certain alkene]]s. Commercially important polymers prepared using persulfates include [[styrene-butadiene rubber]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2-Ethylanthraquinone 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:
  • | year = 2007 | publisher = Wiley-VCH | location = Weinheim | doi = 10.1002/14356007.a13_443.pub2 }}</ref><ref>Römpp CD 2006, Georg Thieme Verlag 2006</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pyridazine 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:
  • heterocycles are often prepared via condensation of 1,4-[[diketone]]s or 4-ketoacids and hydrazine]].<ref>M. Tišler, B. Stanovnik "Pyridazines" Advances in Heterocyclic Chemistry, Volume 9, 1968,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

periodic table[edit]

Please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#element infobox and comment if you if you wish.Petergans (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Acetylene edits[edit]

Thank you for looking over my work once again. I will take your critiques to heart and make some appropriate changes. I agree about my illustration, it is a butt-ugly eyesore. I just thought I would draw it because the whole article set a precedence for pictures (i.e. I didn't want my submission be the only one to break the format). Anyways... I first learned of this from Ullmann's too but the coverage was a mere paragraph. The Walter Reppe 1969 source source says iron pentacarbonyl can be used as reagent when no free carbon monoxide is available to recharge the catalyst. The equation yielding iron(II) carbonate is taken verbatim from the 1969 paper. For chemists without a lab fitted with special hazard insurance (i.e. being OK'd to work with carbon monoxide), I thought small-time experimenters ought to know they can work with a relatively safe solid reagent rather than a highly poisonous gas.

As a side note on the topic of the iron pentacarbonyl usage, the 1969 source says the reaction between methylacetylene and dimethylacetylene is highly selective (regardless of stichometry) favoring 1,2,4-trimethylhydroquinone, a precursor for the total synthesis of Vitamin E. It also says that higher alkyl groups work as well for this method. Looks to me that this sort of reaction could have industrial applications (considering aromatic substitution is a pain in the ass). The author also explains the reason for this type of synthesis "going out of style" is because petroleum's rise to dominance over the prior calcium carbide industry (and acetylene's cheaper petroleum replacement ethylene). We all know that is a problem considering that we, as a species, are rapidly depleting our oil reserves. Definitely an opportunity to invent new, cheap, "future proof" syntheses of substituted aromatics...

As for topic reccomendations, besides the other occasional curiosities, I am interested in sourcing chemical reagents from renewable resources (i.e. practical yet unconventional total syntheses of reagents). It's fun to think (mostly waste time) over. If you have something weird for me in a secondary source please shoot away, I will give it a look. --ThunderSkunk (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I learned something about the hydroquinone synthesis, thanks. I thought that you blew it with ferrous carbonate and had intended to write Fe(CO)3. There is a huge amount of stuff in the Reppe area, but the main apps are hydrocarbonylation and hydroesterification of alkenes and alkynes.
The main challenge is notability, that is the reason that Wiki policy places so much emphasis of WP:SECONDARY (books and reviews). In this spirit I recommend a new review on acetylene chemistry doi:10.1021/cr400357r. Even if you do not have a subscription, you can view the articles outline.
Re your comment about the depletion of our petrochemical reserves. My understanding also is that cheap petroleum destroyed the coal-based chemical industry. Thank god though! Calcium carbide based chemistry is filthy and is probably only practiced in PRC and other places that tolerate pollution associated with making that crud. Petrochemicals are here for a long time, esp in view of cheap natural gas. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Al2Et6wedge.png[edit]

Hi Smokefoot. The H3C on top should rather be CH3 IMHO as the bond it straight upwards. It is also inconsistent with the CH3 at the bottom and the two ethyl groups on the left hand side. --Leyo 01:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Drats. I thought that maybe you and DMacks would be happy! Well, at least the drawing is better than before. I will eventually redraw this again! Its been a while. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Boron nitrate[edit]

This looks rather odd. The "references" seem to be to boron nitride, the usual spelling mistake. The unreferenced preparation is tribromide plus nitric acid. All seems like a mistake to me. If you agree can we get it deleted?Axiosaurus (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that is an odd one. As we know, all sorts of articles get entered and the dubious ones have weak refs. I guess someone must have made the nitrate ester of boric acid, but I had not heard of it. Will look around as the opportunity arises. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is a reference that says it does not exist: http://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2005/0207.pdf but of course there could be a later one that says it does. But this references says it exists below -78°C. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00854900 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cut-and-paste move"[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Diimine a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Christian75 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Although I might err in some cases, I usually follow official protocol. It would be nice to have the authority to switch the target title to an existing redirect without needing to ask for an administrator, but I get lots of help. It looks like the move that I wanted was implemented by fellow editor Edgar181. I need to go back and tidy up the redirects. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Perfluoroether 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:
  • Hexafluoropropylene oxide]] is one of the simplest members of this class of compounds. [[Perfluoro(methyl vinyl ether]] and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether are used as a co[[monomer]]s with tetrafluoroethylene.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Perfluorinated compound 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) 15:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Benzidine 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:
  • * [[tolidine|''o''-tolidine]] (2,2'-dimethyl-4,4’-benzidine

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chloride 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 chlorides of sodium ([[halite]] or NaCl), potassium ([[sylvite]] or KCl), and magnesium ([[bischofite]], hydrated MgCl<sub>2</sub>. Called [[serum chloride]], the concentration of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fluoroboric 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] (Ph<sub>3</sub>C<sup>+</sup>BF<sub>4</sub><sup>-</sup>), [[triethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate]] ((Et<sub>3</sub>O<sup>+</sup>BF<sub>4</sub><sup>-</sup>), and [[Benzenediazonium chloride|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Perfluoroalkoxy alkane[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Perfluoroalkoxy alkane, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.polymerplastics.com/fluoro_pfa.shtml.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tricresyl phosphate[edit]

I agree that in general primary literature should not be cited. But the ref. list already contains several others, and the paper I added extends the value of the article. So where is the consistency? Ankababel (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess the article should be cleaned up, that would be the way to go rather than adding to the problem. There also is the appearance of COI between the editor who started an article on a journal edited by Ramsden and citing an obscure article by the same person in the same journal. Thanks for the note.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Smokefoot. You have new messages at Edgar181's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fluoride[edit]

I saw your edit for Fluoride: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluoride&oldid=596071903 I could see why you removed my newer sections as I mistooke that I was posting on the ion form of fluorine. I wanted to ask a few questions though: you removed the secion: "===Inorganic chemicals=== Fluorides are pervasive in modern technology. Hydrofluoric acid is the fluoride synthesized on the largest scale. It is produced by treating fluoride minerals with sulfuric acid. Hydrofluoric acid and its anhydrous form hydrogen fluoride are used in the production of fluorocarbons and aluminium fluorides. Hydrofluoric acid has a variety of specialized applications, including its ability to dissolve glass. See this book: Aigueperse, Jean; Mollard, Paul; Devilliers, Didier; Chemla, Marius; Faron, Robert; Romano, Renée; Cuer, Jean Pierre (2005), "Fluorine Compounds, Inorganic", Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, p. 307, doi:10.1002/14356007.a11_307 

Mined fluorite (calcium fluoride) is a commodity chemical used in steel-making. Cryolite, Na3AlF6, is the next highest fluoride salt in industry. It is used in aluminium smelting. Formerly, it was mined, but now it is derived from hydrogen fluoride. Various other fluoride salts are used as fluxes or for the preparation of other fluorine compounds, including covalently bonded fluorochemicals." I didn't create this section but it seems to stay on subject for fluoride, I thought it should stay and I'm new to editing on wiki but I remember reading I should ask the editor if possible before reverting parts of their edits.

Also, for one of the citations you removed info, from: "<ref>{{vcite article |url=http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/fluoride.pdf |format=PDF |year=2004 |title=Fluoride in drinking-water |author=World Health Organization}}</ref>" to: "<ref>http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/fluoride.pdf</ref>" I've been including title and such from my citations, are you not supposed to? I want to make sure I'm not missing something. Thank you for your help.

Thanks for the note. I hope that you will have a positive experience. The nature of your impact will improve by (i) communicating with established editors and (ii) making small changes initially.
In any case, the fluoride article is on F- and related salts. At least that is the direction that the article has taken. I did not check to see if the chloride, bromide, halide etc articles are similar. You quickly can realize that there is a lot of opportunity for disciplined writing/content.
One issue that I often contend with is that infrequent editors fail to appreciate the huge prosaic applications. Instead, we get a lot of editors who want to mention their hobby (e.g. aquariums, stain removal, grandma's ant poison) or their college essay/publication as being something really important, when in fact they are negligible and obscure the big picture. Hence the need to focus fluoride on its role in aluminium and steelmaking, which really dominate. On the other hand, the use of fluoride in dental care is highly impactful, but consumes tiny fraction of the world's fluoride supply.
About the link "<ref>http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/fluoride.pdf</ref>" You are welcome to revise if you think that I messed up. My recollection is that the link was non-functional (they call this link-rot around here) so I tweaked it.
And the RSC links and WebElements links that I am disinclined toward. These websites do not seem (to me) to be particularly authoritative. They probably/possibly borrow content from Wikipedia or chemical catalogues. I view them as quasi-adverts for some organization, such as the RSC.
I hope that this extended answer is helpful. Feel free to ask more or just go edit. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feed back, and clarification. I'll double check the link for what I was thinking but it makes more sense now. As for RSC it seem informative. I've listen to many of their podcasts and for the elements podcasts they are each produced by different professions. They mention a lot of the same information but that leads me into the other point you mentioned, about the Inorganic section. As a reader and someone that has mainly used Wikipedia for school, it seems relavant to me to include as much of the uses for a compound or an element as with fluoride isn't steelmaking or aluminium or for dental care in the big picture. The reason I even started looking it up was to look at alternative uses, but it was a little confusing the overlap between fluoride and fluorine that and the names being similar didn't help, and I made a silly mistake on my part. The inorganic section seems very relavant as I was most intrested in the inorganic properties, which does get into steel making and such, but there are so many other research sections. How do you think it would work best to include the rich diversity of an element such as F, but not include filler? I ask, only because I don't have a good answer myself. That said, maybe put the steel and aluminum section under inorganic chemistry and just have the uses divided by class of chemistry? Thank you again, --HardKhora (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2014 (Central Time)

Butoxyethanol[edit]

Hi Smokefoot! Thanks for all your help and edits with the 2-butoxyethanol page. We will try to make our sources more international and we will look into other sources. Blairwal (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Perchlorate Suggestion[edit]

Hi, thank you so much for your help and suggestions. However, I came across some questions.
1) Be sure to emphasize secondary sources, i.e. reviews and books. See WP:SECONDARY. Absolutely required for biomedical citations per WP:MEDRS. -- How do I emphasize secondary source on bibliography?

You should mainly cite secondary sources. Articles that say they are reviews. Naive editors often like to cite fairly narrow journal articles but you dont know enough to do that well (no offense). Professors and a handful of experts are really able to cite primary literature well.

2) If you find you are using the word "recently", don't. We are not interested in news per WP:NOTNEWS. -- I haven't used recently but all I said was "it is currently a subject of legal action". Should I not use currently either?

If something is "currently… anything" then leave it out. Wikipedia is not a blog. Your content is frozen in time largely. So then two years from now someone reads your content and sees that "it is currently a subject of legal action" which is obsolete because currently was very yesterday.

3) The article is international, so do not assume exclusively US perspective. Far more readers live outside of US than inside. An essay on US regulations is inappropriate. -- I just gave what US is doing as an example. Should I just remove a discussion on US government?

then make sure that you indicate a US perspective. The EPA and FDA are the U.S. EPA and the U.S. FDA. It is a tiring to read the content from US students who are oblivious of the fact that they are a minority of readers.

4) The article is about a chemical species, not its environmental impact per se. So be balanced per WP:UNDUE. -- For part of the project, we are researching on how these chemicals are affecting humans and environment. The article already seems to have health issues involved. Would including more health issues and environment be a problem?

Just be mindful that there is a ton of (often mediocre or redundant) literature on tox and environmental stuff. So be careful. Remind your instructor that length does not correlate with excellence. We do not want the MSDS reiterated. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry#Safety.

Thank you Kohw 23:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohw (talkcontribs)

Dear Kohw: First of all, thanks for the note. Second, be aware that I have zero authority here and my exhortations are only that (hot air). In the end, editors do what they want and so long as the content is moderately factual, it will largely stand. Some comments inserted above. Good luck and dont worry about me, there's not a lot that I can do. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

re: You seem to be spamming NASA[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Smokefoot. You have new messages at Drbogdan's talk page.
Message added 19:07, 22 February 2014. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: Tripropylene is wrong?[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Smokefoot. You have new messages at A876's talk page.
Message added 23:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your deletion[edit]

Wait for what? If you want to wait forever, that's your business. That was an authoritative source.--Wyn.junior (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Out of line[edit]

You are out of line. The paper in question is published on the World Health Organization site, and is CLEARLY a secondary source, if you had bothered to examine it, as evidenced by the numerous other primary and secondary sources at the bottom of the page. I would encourage you to read the information you posted regardless, as nowhere does it bar even primary sources, stating that they should be backed up by secondary sources whenever possible if making "an interpretation", which I was certainly not doing! It is common and accepted practice to cite the same article more than once on a Wiki page. And FTR, I am not at all affiliated with any of the publishers,researchers, or authors in question! The information you wantonly deleted was cited in multiple sources, is factually accurate, and widely accepted. You seem to have a minor fixation on the issues of "sourcing" and COI. I encourage you to rethink your actions in the future to avoid conflict with your fellow editors.Jbtvt (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I dont completely agree, adding many references to a single research group is highly unusual. Judging from the number of publications on lead poisoning or chelation, one can appreciate the difficulty in selecting references. Self-citation is a problem in Wikipedia that conveys distorted information, hence my concerns. In any case, thanks for being careful and I hope that I am indeed in the wrong. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Metal carbido complex 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • resonance values for the carbido carbons vary widely, but range from δ211-406.<ref name=Heijl2002>{{cite journal|last=Hejl|first=Andrew|coauthors=Trnka, Day, Grubbs|journal=Chem. Commun.|year=2002|
  • ==Other reading (specialized==

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carbamoyl chloride 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:
  • colourless, and soluble in nonpolar organic solvents. An example dimethylcarbamoyl chloride (m.p. -90 °C and b.p. 93 °C. They are used to prepare a number of pesticides, e.g. [[Carbofuran]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Isobutylidenediurea 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:
  • '' (abbreviated IBDU) is an [[organic compound]] with the formula (CH<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>CHCH{NHC(O)NH<sub>2</sub>|<sub>2</sub>. It is a derivative of urea (OC(NH<sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub>),

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Biguanide 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:
  • | OtherCpds = {{]]}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dihydroxymethylidene 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:
  • Peter "Spectroscopic identification of dihydroxycarbene" Angewandte Chemie, International Edition (2008, volume 47, 7071-7074. {{DOI|10.1002/anie.200802105}} </ref> Many related carbenes are known,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

2-Butoxyethanol[edit]

Hi, I saw your message on my Talk page and just wanted to thank you for the help you've provided for my work on 2-Butoxyethanol. My contribution to the article is for a class on environmental disruptors and I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. What I was contributing today was on 2-Butoxyethanol's environmental effects. I was also looking to provide some information on how it moves through the environment. I don't know if that helps you to understand the intentions behind my contribution, but if you need more help I could try to provide it. Custodim (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It just seems that what you are trying to do requires a lot of expertise in biosynthetic and biodegradation pathways and access to high level sources, not just websites. So I would try to convince your teacher to get involved (probably over their head too, I would guess) or make the topic a little easier. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for rather general knowledge, not a catalogue of articles and websites. I hope that my advice does not seem harsh, but it seems that your assignment is almost too high and too vague. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sodium cobaltinitrite 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:
  • The compound is prepared by oxidation of cobalt(II) salts in the presence of potassium nitrite]]:<ref>O. Glemser "Sodium Hexanitritocobaltate(III)" Handbook of Preparative Inorganic Chemistry,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Formic Acid[edit]

I have no commercial or other interest in Meda. They are simply (to my knowledge) the only manufacturer or distributor of formic acid for medical use. DES (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Organoruthenium chemistry 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:
  • [[Shvo catalyst|Shvo's catalyst]] ({[Ph<sub>4</sub>(η<sup>5</sup>-C<sub>4</sub>CO)]<sub>2</sub>H]}Ru<sub>2</sub>(CO)<sub>4</sub>(μ-H)) is also coordinatively saturated, but features reactive OH
  • 5</sub> and Fe<sub>2</sub>(CO)<sub>9</sub> are not very useful. The pentacarbonyl de[carbonylate]]s readily:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2-Tetralone 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:
  • | MeltingPt=18 °C(

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phenylpropanoic 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • by the [[Arndt–Eistert reaction]], subsequent cyclization affords [[2-Tetralone|2-tetralone]],] derivatives.<ref name=Korneev/>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Titanium hydride 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:
  • has the [[calcium fluoride|fluorite]] structure, with tetrahedral four-coordinate hydride ligand]]s linking eight-coordinate Ti(II) centres.<ref name="Fukai">{{cite book |last=Fukai |first=Y |year=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sudan stain 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:
  • usually [[lipid]]s. [[Sudan II]], [[Sudan III]], [[Sudan IV]], [[Oil Red O]], and [[Sudan Black B]]) are important members of this class of chemical compounds (see images below).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Metallocene 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:
  • derivatives involving Co and Ni. Often derived from substituted derivatives of cyclopentadienide]], metallocenes of many elements have been prepared.<ref>Paul J. Chirik "Group 4 Transition Metal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In re your comments at my Talk page[edit]

Smokefoot writes: Just a couple of comments/suggestions. Rather than critiquing - edit! That is what we do here. It takes less effort to consult a monograph or text on conformational analysis or VSEPR and repair something amiss vs writing "nearly all of the article is unverifiable, and parts are inaccurate or indecipherable, and so therefore are unreliable as encyclopedic content.". Start by editing in dribs and drabs. Target the worst parts of offending articles. A lot of this stuff is written by non-experts, so there is no problem with experts apparently like yourself just rewriting/deleting a section or two and then waiting to see how the revision is received. Typically deafening silence. The chemically fluent editors are helpful but tend to mildly avoid each other, not out of antisocial tendencies but because our interests diverge. FYI, IMHO the greatest long range challenge in Wikichem is WP:UNDUE, which arises from WP:COI and non-observance of WP:SECONDARY. Happy editing, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Au contraire, many types of activities are occurring here, and some editors do no original content generation, and are quite content (and well regarded for their "contributions"). In re: "It takes less effort…"

I dont know of any "effective" contributor who just critiques, but maybe that is your niche. Wikipedia takes all types.

Again, to the contrary, one of the problems of this organization is the very low view that is taken of adequately understanding and crafting and sourcing content before posting—in large part, because just typing, and later proof-texting is so easy, relative to true, solid content generation.

well, a lot of early Wiki-chem was written by authors winging it. But that material is slowly being revised into more ground content. For example, there are not many compositions of matter described here in a misleading way. The more problematic articles are on concepts.

No, to create de novo or to fix to comparable quality of a de novo creation—these are truly much harder than just calling attention to shortcomings. (This could have been your persuasive argument, that I have taken too easy of a tack.) So I do 70-80% of the former (de novo content generation), and 20-30% of the latter (calling attention, and there, it is usually a result of reviewing links outside of the article I am generating). So I am quite comfortable, philosophically and practically with this. (Professors are paid for critical thinking and discourse. As for impact, Martin Luther did not personally reform Catholicism from within, but there is no gainsaying his impact on the history of that institution, achieved via calling attention to matters needing to change—clearly, and firmly.)

Well that is a possible accusation: critiquers are to some extent taking the easy road (at the risk of alientation from appearance of pretentiousness or effeteness). An intermediate path exists, which involves revising the really awful stuff and adding attribution to a solid text or review.
BTW, It can be a huge effort to revise an article on, say, cyclohexane conformation. Before undertaking such a project you need to assess if Cyclohexane conformation is the most effective or appropriate article for the topic. All sorts of ill-thought out overlapping topics have often been created on very similar topics. It is this level of analysis that really is taxing. Often the solution is to merge related articles, which I sometimes advocate, thinking that a few good articles are better than a lot of bad ones. I have however become convinced that what makes Wikipedia special is its accommodation all kinds of specialized stuff.

Otherwise, I am quite comfortable with my approach to offering accolades for good content creation, editing and administration (and those doing it), as well as in challenging unfit material, and interacting with others (non-expert and expert), etc. Moreover, I have been awarded for calling attention to major thrusts of editing before the actual editing is done. This strategy has been, relatively speaking, so successful that I always post a talk section before doing any major edit. (On the other hand, the more common, opposite strategy, to edit boldly and wait for reversion, has led to reversion wars—once for taking out unreferenced material, and once for not taking it out—so you will forgive if I kindly assent to "agree to disagree" on this matter.

Well, there you go. Perhaps your new reviewer style is the way to go. The question is who better than you will address the problems you raise?
Some editors focus on really specialized academic stuff vs contextualizing (or they dont know any context). Often this problem comes from COI. Academics - high level and grad students - come to Wikipedia to highlight their papers. More difficult to control are extremely specialized articles created, probably, for some COI-driven process. These editors almost never contribute more broadly. They are here to showcase their sub-subfield.

But if you are another thoughtful subject matter expert, I am sure we will enjoy working together toward high quality, secondary-referenced scientific content, side by side (even though I am non-wikipedian in my approach) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you for the nice message and best wishes for your work here. For me, editing here is weird sort of a relaxation mechanism, so I am sort of a loner with my own complicated agenda. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Kudos, also. It's good you know what drives you—knowing your desired destination make's it all the more likely you'll arrive. I've been in the background in chem for some time, and am only now raising my head for a breath, and then only briefly... but I am sure we will cross paths again, and productively. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

TY for attention at NP[edit]

If you know other natural products guys, please, feel free and direct them to the discussion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if there are natural products people per se, but out most active editors is User:Edgar181, He is a med-chemist trained in organic. Another med chem person is user:~K, who has been inactive but possibly checking his favorites. He started many articles on named reactions. User:DMacks is probably an organic chemist too. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diphenylamine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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:
  • For example, treatment with [[sulfuric acid]] gives the bisulfate [C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>5</sub>)<sub>2</sub>NH<sub>2</sub>]<sup>+</sup>[HSO<sub>4</sub>]<sup>-</sup> as a white or yellowish powder
  • s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 2005, Wiley-VCH: Weinheim. {{DOI|10.1002/14356007.a02_303}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Non-stoichiometric compound 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:
  • ]'''Non-stoichiometric compounds''' are [[chemical compound]]s with an [[chemical element|elemental]]
  • hydride]] is a nonstoichiometric material of the approximate composition PdH<sub>x</sub> (0.02 < x < 0.58). This solid conducts hydrogen by virtue of the mobility of the hydrogen atoms within the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tungsten dichloride dioxide 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:
  • | BoilingPt = sublimes > 350 °C in vacuo
  • [[File:WO2Cl2(dme).png|thumb|left|Structure of the complex WO<sub>2</sub>Cl<sub>2</sub>(dimethoxyethane.]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Organotin chemistry may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s and 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Organotin chemistry 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:
  • <ref name=Chand/> The organotin halides for adducts, e.g. Me<sub>2</sub>SnCl<sub>2</sub>([[2,2'-Bipyridine|bipyridine]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acetylferrocene 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:
  • Acetylferrocene is prepared by [[acetylation]] of ferrocene, usually with acetic anhydride]]:<ref>Donahue, C. J., Donahue, E. R., "Beyond Acetylferrocene: The Synthesis and NMR Spectra of a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Titanium 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:
  • in the ocean. At 100 °C water, the concentration of titanium in water is estimated to be <10<sup>-7</sup> M at pH 7. The composition of titanium species in aqueous solution remains unknown

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Glyoxylic acid (contd.) - no Chemical Reviews the journal[edit]

Hello Smokefoot, after reading your comments of not using primary sources, how about journal articles from Chemical Reviews ?-- Mountainninja (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For chemists, Chem Revs is one of the best secondary sources, IMHO. Good luck with the glyoxalic acid quest. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I have a conflict of interest in the sense that I serve Chem. Rev. in an advisory capacity. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Bulk chemicals[edit]

Thank you for your message. It is a synonym of Commodity chemicals. I have created the redirect now. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ooookay, where is the list of "commodity chemical" defined. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
In the page Commodity chemicals. However I am looking know to find some source and it looks that there is a little confusion about these terms. Furthermore, looking this Italian page it looks like that there are two types of commodity chemicals, so now I am not sure that the terms "bulk chemicals" and "commodity chemicals" are exact synonyms: most likely "bulk chemical" is a synonym of "branded commodity chemicals". Give a couple of days to check these definitions in a reliable source; in the meantime you can put some notice in the category to advice (maybe template:WIP?) that I am checking this category. If I found some good source, I would create two similar categories for speciality chemicals and fine chemicals. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like OR to me. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I am going to create a page called "commercial classification of chemicals" or "industrial classification of chemicals" (see User:Daniele Pugliesi/Sandbox/2); in the case it will be too short, it can be incorporated in Chemical substance or Chemical industry. During the creation of this page/section I will check the meaning of each term in some reliable source. In the case of "bulk materials", I found this term somewhere (I don't remember where at the moment) as a synonym of "commodity", but now I am doubting that they are synonyms, so what do you suggest about the Category:Bulk chemicals? It is fine to leave it there another couple of days and in the meantime I check it, or it is better to delete it and decide after about its creation? Do you have any other suggestion/comment about the commercial classification of chemicals? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Although with best of intentions, you may be engaged in a tricky game especially since you are starting this process before you have good sources. Yes, we realize that some compounds are made on a large scale. I recommend caution because I doubt if official definitions exist for bulk, commodity, or specialty. Related to petrochemical and petroleum products, you might want to start a category on one of those reasonably well defined labels. Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am translating it:Classificazione commerciale dei prodotti chimici, where there are enough sources about the definition of "commodity chemicals" and a clear (I think) explanation of its meaning. I am going to create also a table with the worldwide production of these chemicals: in fact one peculiarity of commodity chemicals is their high production. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In it.wikipedia I never had to ask for categorization. For this reason I didn't look for consensus. I used the list in Commodity chemicals, where there is the definition too. I will put the sources in the next days. Sorry for my English and my boldness. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I look forward to seeing a good definition. In terms of boldness, it is usually a good idea to be bold, but when one is challenged by experienced editor and when the edit has broad impact. Seeking consensus seems prudent, healthy, and collegial. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for visit to NP article and[edit]

...wanted to call your attention to my shading of your entries. This is being done, so new editors comments are not lost in the sea of counter-discourse between Boghog and I. Doing so makes the new comments and questions easier to find, and easier to refer to. Since we get along fine, I am going to assume it is alright, but just ping me / say here if it is not OK. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A last short needed look[edit]

Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [1], and consider a final persuasive comment. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

Water fluoridation controversy edits[edit]

Hello- I made several changes to the water fluoridation controversy page, which were reverted with a suggestion to post an explanation of all edits on the talk page for discussion. I did so, but there have been no comments, so I'm not sure where to go from there since I've never dealt with reverted edits before. I don't know if there is an etiquette that requires a certain amount of time before I should reinstate the changes, or if someone else would do so. User:Rebecca_hare — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca: the etiquette, to the extent it is defined, is for me to act on you cooperative gesture in a timely manner, which I failed to do. I will revert my revert. Thanks and good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

filenames[edit]

Filenames should be clear and informative, and minimize ambiguity. If the filename could plausibly be used for a completely different image, it's not a good filename. DS (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Cudennec et al - what gives?[edit]

Is there a reason that you repeatedly cite fairly specialized papers by Cudennec et al? Just curious, but I look forward to a response. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are Y. Cudennec. I encourage you to read about WP:COI. I will revert some of your edits because of this issue. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, i have suppressed my own publications list, which appears in the text, but not references of concerned papers.Maghemite (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! We are not supposed to cite ourselves. Or do so very rarely and mainly for WP:SECONDARY. I should add that almost every academic research makes the same mistake when they start editing here. Obviously you were not trying to trick anyone. I hope that you can edit articles where you know something but do not cite yourself. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course, i have mainly contributed (in french but also, a little in english ) about thermodynamic, in citing Peter.W.Atkins. Sincerely Yours Maghemite (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Noyori Ru-BINAP[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I agree the image is too large. I can fix that. Can you suggest how to correct the steps of the mechanism? My goal was to exactly replicate the mechanism already on the page, did I miscopy it, or is the original mechanism also incorrect? --Azmanam (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)azmanam

Well the main thing is that it is nice that you want to contributie. One suggestion if you are a new editor is to work on smaller scale projects than some grand mechanism. We need articles on many useful ligands for example. Lots of articles on complex heterocycles lack citations. Try to stick to secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY) like reviews. Another way to contribute is to find a good review, like in Chem Rev or Advances in ... --Smokefoot (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. First, you did not respond to my questions. Can you point out what is incorrect in the mechanism so I may at least know for my own edification. Second, I don't appreciate the condescending implication of your comment that newbies can't make meaningful edits. I get the concept of building up credibility, but patronizingly redirecting me to 'smaller' projects feels dismissive. Don't pull rank, that's unbecoming. Let's talk chemistry and work to make WP better. --Azmanam (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not trying to be unwelcoming, but encouraging a new editor to start small is the usual advice that one follows in the lab as well as in Wikipedia editing. On technical articles, it is a good idea to go incremental. One problem with your scheme is that it invoked Ru(I). --Smokefoot (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. And thank you for your comments on the article talk page. --Azmanam (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Question: if you dont know enough basic organometallic chemistry to avoid these easy errors, why are you pressing to create images for the world to see? --Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair question, friend. My goal was not to add knowledge to Wikipedia, my goal was to redraw mechanisms or schemes from WP that could look better with a little forethought into design. It started on Twitter as #ChemDrawChallenge, where we would take a sloppy or confusing ChemDraw image from a paper or from Wikipedia and redraw it with design in mind. Not change it or modify it at all, just redraw it. This image came from our third or fourth #ChemDrawChallenge and I liked it enough to replace the one on Wikipedia. Again, I had no intention of changing the mechanism, just recreating it. So while I am a Ph.D. organic chemist, and it's true I don't have the trained eye of an organometallic chemist and didn't see the basic errors, the question behind your question is how did that original mechanism last so long on the WP page if it suffers from the same basic organometallic errors?
But even that question doesn't really matter. My question is, is the original mechanism nice to look at? Could it be more clear or more appealing with a little face lift? And if it has errors, can we both fix those errors and make it more aesthetically pleasing and/or even clearer than the original? Is that structure in the original on the bottom right labeled 'Unfavored TS' clear and easy to read? I'm not necessarily saying my drawing was clearer (I hope it was, that was my goal), but the point was not to add knowledge, but to add aesthetics. I wish I had the ability to correct the errors and make it more appealing, but I did not. Let's work together to accomplish both goals. --Azmanam (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Metal carbonyl[edit]

Hi Smokefoot, I would like to introduce a chapter about nomenclature (like here. Any comments or suggestions from your side? -- Linksfuss (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well you are encouraged to help out. The set of drawings has the following quirks, for me:
  • The number of bonds between C and O seems strange (But I dont know how to depict them perfectly)
  • mu-CO are typically more symmetrical than shown.
  • perhaps too much emphasis on exotic CO bonding modes? (e.g., mu-6)

Hope this helps. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I´ll give it a try. -- Linksfuss (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S./fyi: M. M. Hirschmann: Fe-carbonyl is a key player in planetary magmas. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110, 2013, S. 7967–7968, doi:10.1073/pnas.1305237110.

Photographic film edits[edit]

Hello,

It is heartening to find a proper chemist reviewing the technical accuracy of this article, and cit-starved as it is, the addition of any high-quality reference is cause enough for rejoicing, but I question whether some recent copyediting in the lead really represents progress.

To my eyes, "... creates an invisible latent image in the emulsion, which can ..." said just the same thing as "... creates an latent image in the emulsion. Although invisible to the eye, this latent image can ...", but in fewer words and perhaps a bit more clearly because of it.

My understanding of WP guidelines is that the lead is supposed to be concise and written in terms that are as non-technical and accessible to the general reader as possible, which also throws into question the wisdom of reiterating the basic concept of a "slight chemical change" as an "incipient chemical reaction", a more dauntingly technical albeit more specific description that may be counterproductive detail in this context.

:I was trying to remove jargon or explain it a little better, but you seem to have a good way of writing, so I am cool.

A link to the broader topic of photographic processing rather than to photographic developer seems more likely to be helpful to the uninitiated -- and development alone will not produce the "visible and permanent image" subsequently promised by the new wording without the fixing step that is an integral part of the former article's subject.

:I will look at photographic processing. Photographic developer seems redundant, rambling, and seems to be hankering to give advice. I might re-write it more concisely.

Finally, a beef which is not my own but which I am inclined to take to heart. Another editor has ranted with evident exasperation that the image, strictly speaking, is what the camera lens projects onto the photosensitive surface; the resulting artifact is a photograph of an image, not an image. The lens of the eye projects an image of the photograph onto the retina. Common usage rarely makes that distinction -- even collectors of vintage photographs usually call their swap meets "image shows" -- so it is certainly not mandated here, but when possible without making the wording too awkward I now incline to referring to the artifacts themselves as "photographs" rather than "images". Therefore, the former "... visible photograph" seems preferable to "... visible and permanent image, the photograph" for multiple reasons. AVarchaeologist (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

:Well that kind of thinking can drive one nuts. Not sure it serves our readers. Please let me know how or where I can help. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polyimide 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:
  • dianhydride]]. Common diamine building blocks include [[4,4�-diaminodiphenyl ether]] )"DAPE"), [[1,3-Phenylenediamine|meta-phenylenediamine]] ("MDA"), and 3,3�-diaminodiphenylmethane.<ref name=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Triuret may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "[]"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:
  • :3 [H<sub>2</sub>N)<sub>2</sub>CO → [H<sub>2</sub>NC(O)NH]<sub>2</sub>CO + 2 NH<sub>3</sub>
  • :2 [H<sub>2</sub>N)<sub>2</sub>CO + COCl<sub>2</sub> → [H<sub>2</sub>NC(O)NH]<sub>2</sub>CO + 2 HCl

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Layered double hydroxides 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fertilizer 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 derivatives of urea, a straight fertilizer providing nitrogen. [[Isobutylidenediurea]] IBDU) and urea-formaldehyde slowly convert in the soil to free urea, which is rapidly uptaken by plants.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)~


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fertilizer 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:
  • (N<sub>2</sub>) by converting it to ammonia. Phosphate is required for the production of ATP]], the main energy carrier in cells, as well as certain lipids.
  • These concise formulas are shorthand for the nature of the phosphorus (phosphate) or potassium (K<sup>+</sup> sources.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eutrophication 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Norleucine 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:
  • Its [[biosynthesis]] has been examined. It arise via the action of 2-isopropylmalate synthase]] on [[α-ketobutyrate]]. The incorporation of Nle into peptides reflects the imperfect selectivity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Fertilizer page[edit]

Thanks for your contribution; I have been chipping away at some of the details, but I agree that major changes in structure are necessary; use of the term "organic fertilizer" also needs to be tightened up - See Talk:Fertilizer

Regarding your comments about Cracking (chemistry) on my Talk page[edit]

Hi, Smokefoot: In general, I would agree with your comments. However, as I am now almost 92 years old and also that I have not had anything to do with the subject article, I hesitate to get involved in re-writing parts of that article. Please try to get some chemist (rather than a chemical engineer) to get involved. mbeychok (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: chemistry articles[edit]

I've read your comment (message?) on my page. I understand what you mean, but I was just adding some info that could not be found anywhere else and I once needed, and couldn't find on wiki. Anyway, I'll refrain from adding manual-like content (pretty much the only stuff I can add, sadly). It's better being told right at the beginning then after writing a lot. Valeg96 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm replying here because this whole talk thing seems a bit complicated (it says if I reply on my talk you won't have notifications?) and I don't have time to take a full tour of everything. What has been amended/removed, just to know? Something else other than the H3PO4 synthesis? Valeg96 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I amended your edit on MnO. You can always check the history of edits by clicking on the history tab at the top of your page. Or you can check up on the editing activity of anyone by clicking "User contributions" on the left side of any user page. So if you look at my contributions, about ten entries ago, I made a big edit on manganese(II) oxide. And then you can see that today, inspired by your contributions, I edited iron(II) oxide. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I also reverted your edit on chromium trioxide. It is made from the sodium salt. The potassium salt is mainly for teaching and academic labs. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You really think that PH3 is produced industrially from the KOH vs NaOH? Seems unusual. Recall we are discussing how things are made industrially, not how the could be made. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1-Aminoethanol 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:
  • 1-Aminoethanol exists in a solution of acetaldehyde and ammonia.<ref>{{March6th}}</ref> [[Alanaminol can react with [[formic acid]] to form the amino acid [[Alanine]], releasing water.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nitrosyl chloride 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:
  • "p-Tolylsulfonyldiazomethane" Org. Synth. 1977, vol. 57, 95. {{DOI|10.15227/orgsyn.057.0095}}}</ref> NOCl converts some cyclic amines to the alkenes. For example, [[aziridine]] reacts with

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Electron Configuration[edit]

I added the el. conf to the Cr(IV), and you reverted it with the comment

well intentioned edit but gets d config wrong uses old fashioned analysis vs ligand fd

Can you please explain your comment further, I am not sure if I get what you are trying to tell me. PZim (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the note and the opportunity to discuss things. Cr(IV) is d2. Your well intentioned edit also includesd atomic configuration, but in compounds (vs gas phase metal ions) atomic configuration is not typically useful because the effects of the ligand field dominate the splitting. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

PTFE - "low resistance against flowing liquid"[edit]

I have just removed (from the article about PTFE) the following paragraph:

Another major application is in fuel and hydraulic lines, due to PTFE's low resistance against flowing liquids. Colder temperatures at high altitudes cause these fluids to flow more slowly. Coating the lines's interior surfaces with low-resistance PTFE helps to compensate by allowing the liquids to move more easily.

I wrote the detailed justification at the talk page of this article: Talk:Polytetrafluoroethylene#Low resistance against flowing liquid ???. Interestingly, there was a citation attributing this false statement to Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (doi:10.1002/14356007.a11_393) and it was you, who added this reference by this edition:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polytetrafluoroethylene&diff=prev&oldid=591314363 . The statement itself was added long time before by an anonymous user, without any citation. Could you please explain what exactly have you found in this Ullmann's Encyclopedia about "low resistance against flowing liquids"? As a PhD in physical chemistry and physics I am sure, that there must be some misunderstanding, but I do not have this book nor the access to its electronic version. Tescobar (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the diligence. Perhaps we should rephrase that statement. here are some quotes

"Uses [for Teflon in general]

About half of the PTFE resin that is produced is used for electrical purposes …”

... Other important uses of PTFE resin are found in fluid-conveying systems, where it is used for gaskets, molded packings and seals, piston rings, bellows, overbraided hose, and lined pipe." --Smokefoot (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a look?[edit]

Methylammonium.png

Due to a number of (new in the last couple years) to this class of compounds, and some odd redirects (methylammonium chloride -> methyamine) I believe it would be worthwhile to document the following materials:

  • Methylammonium iodide
  • Methylammonium chloride
  • Methylammonium bromide

Because they're increasingly mentioned in the literature on solar cells. There's limited information out there about melting points &c, but the compounds are all "known" to pubchem, chemspider, SMILES, etc. Likewise the old literature (mostly crystallographic) is of interest to the Xray crystallographers, and the new data is interesting to the solar cell crowd. Rather than add three pages (there is no substantial mention of the fluoride) I thought a category page ala acyl halide and hydrogen halide might be worthwhile, so I took a stab at it in my sandbox:

Would you kindly have a look and see if you think it's adequate to add? Follow up on my talk page if you will. If nothing else, now there's an image file for the methylammonium ion. Riventree (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Riventree, great idea in my opinion. I bet these salts are used in all sorts of ways. It would be interesting to describe the structures with respect to hydrogen-bonding. Also whether these salts form hydrates. But that content can be added over time and eventually various editors will find some review on this area. I have also heard about various quat-PbI3-based perovskites. Here is a drawing you might want to use for the chemboxes:
Chemical structure of methylammonium cation

Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Woot. It's up. Methylammonium halide. Feedback welcome.

  • I used the image provided by User:Smokefoot
  • I agreed with User:Materialscientist about how bad the triple-sidebar was, and got inventive.
    • Horizontal "sections" for each constituent. Not applicable for large families, but looks decent
    • Maybe it's a new style!

Riventree (talk)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sodium arsenite 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:
  • sub>2</sub>]{{Su|b=''n''|p=''n''−}}, which are infinite -O-As(=O)- chains. Sodium arsenite also ) Na<sub>3</sub>AsO<sub>3</sub>, called sodium ''ortho''-arsenite.<ref name=G&W>Greenwood, N. N.;

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boriding 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:
  • carbide]] powder diluted with other refractory materials such as [[alumina]] or silicon carbide]]. Potassium [[tetrafluoroborate]] (KBF<sub>4</sub>) is used as a flux. The process converts some

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nickel(II) nitrate 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:
  • Rather is is generated by reaction of hydrates with [[dinitrogen pentoxide]] or of nickel carbonyl]] with [[dinitrogen tetroxide]]:<ref name=Ullmann/>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Red mud 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:
  • | isbn = 978-0-87335-233-8 | author1 = Mining, Society for | author2 = Metallurgy, | author3 = ), Exploration (U.S | date = 2006-03-05}}</ref> A typical plant produces one to two times as much red mud as
  • ><ref name="waste"/><ref name="indust"/> One challenge is that drying the mud requires much energy ([[latent heat]] for [[water]] [[evaporation]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lithium tetrafluoroborate 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Rechargeable Batteries."Chemical Reviews 2004, volume 104, pp. 4303-418. doi|10.1021/cr030203g}}</ref>
  • LiBF<sub>4</sub> can also be synthesized from LiF and BF<sub>3</sub> in an appropriate solvent (e.g., [[hydrogen fluoride]], [[Bromine trifluoride|BrF<sub>3</sub>]], or liquified [[Sulfur dioxide|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hexanitrostilbene 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:
  • /ref> It is used heat resistant [[high explosive]]. It is slightly soluble (0.1 - 5 g/100 mL) in [[butyrolactone, [[DMF]], [[DMSO]], and [[N-methylpyrrolidone]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alkanolamine 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:
  • * alanaminol (HOCH<sub>2</sub>CH(NH<sub>2</sub>)CH<sub>3</sub>) [[alanine]])
  • * sympropaminol ([[2-Aminoisobutyric acid|[2-aminoisobutyric acid]])

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rylene dye 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:
  • HN group in Pigment violet 29 with 3,5-CH<sub>3</sub>N)<sub>2</sub>C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>3</sub>).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Triphosphorus pentanitride 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:
  • :(NPCl<sub>2</sub>)<sub>3</sub>]] + 2 NH<sub>4</sub>Cl → P<sub>3</sub>N<sub>5</sub> + 8 HCl
  • ] upon heating to form [Diammonium_phosphate|(NH<sub>4</sub>)<sub>2</sub>HPO<sub>4</sub>]] and [[Monoammonium_phosphate|NH<sub>4</sub>H<sub>2</sub>PO<sub>4</sub>]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arsphenamine 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:
  • has long been assumed to feature an As=As [[double bond]], akin to the N=N linkage in [azobenzene]]. However, in 2005, an extensive [[mass spectrometry|mass spectral analysis]] Salvarsan was shown

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Steudels reviews as e-books[edit]

no I wasn't aware that they were now e-books. I last consulted these at the university which is a bit of an inconvenience. Thanks for the heads up. I shall acquire them. There's no more space on my shelves for printed chemistry books. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Heme Carbon Monoxide / Cyanide binding[edit]

You reverted my addition to the Heme article that CO and CN- bind the iron center in heme, which is responsible for carbon monoxide poisoning and cyanide poisoning. Both attach to heme ligands, but in different enzymes. CO poisoning binds more to hemoglobin and partially to cytochrome c oxidase. CN poisoning binds more to mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase but also to hemoglobin, preventing uptake of oxygen. Both Hemoglobin and Cytochrome c oxidase rely on temporary binding of oxygen. Hemoglobin so it can carry oxygen to cells, and cytochrome c oxidase to convert oxygen into water. Hemoglobin + CO --> Carboxyhemoglobin. Hemoglobin + CN --> Cyanohemoglobin. Binding of CO or CN to a heme molecule prevents oxygen from binding. The same mechanism prevents both enzymes from functioning correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuloo37 (talkcontribs) 22:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is admirable, and you know a lot of chemistry, but it is still worth exploring your proposed edits on Talk pages before inserting them. You arent required to, of course, but it would be a good idea to give you a chance to hear different perspectives. Most of these articles already mention the affinity of heme proteins for these ligands. The lethality of cyanide is according to my understanding completely attributable to the electron transfer chain being shut down, not hemoglobin or myoglobin getting hit. Although now I see that even cyanide poisoning lacks a decent reference. Also, these kinds of assertions benefit from reference to a textbook or a review. I any case I will revert by reversions and give us both some time to get this sorted out with some nice solid refs. Hows that? --Smokefoot (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Red-Al[edit]

I see you've also noticed the flurry of editing at Red-Al. I've not checked over the edits yet but the images now have errors (at least to my eyes). I've mensioned it on the article talk page. Any idea whats going on here? Project Osprey (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Beats me. Possibly a homework assignment, possibly a marketer of this stuff. Following your suggestions I went back to the article. I dont use it but my colleagues call it Vitride. You are welcome do dive in. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd suspect a school project. Everyone I know calls it "Red-Al", some name-reaction/common-reagent books call it SMEAH. Using the systematic/chemical name is reasonable for the article itself. TONE/NPOV is surprisingly good if it were a corp promoter:) But as often for merger of a huge pile of new-content and changes, they were poorly integrated. I hacked on it a bit. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
On looking further, possibly promoter, and the content isn't all that good:( DMacks (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
On-wiki evidence of it being some school thing via cs.wp. DMacks (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Copper(III) oxide[edit]

You can't restore a prod once someone other than the creator of the article has removed it. I see no other admin has been willing to do the deletion either. You will need to take it to AfD. I restored the fuller version with the link to the ruWP. I'm not an expert in this subject, but there do appear to be refs mentioning it. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sort of an expert on the subject and the Russian Construction manual is not a credible citation. But I will take a look again and try to prune silly stuff. Thanks for the help and note. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


C-H activation page[edit]

Thanks for the suggestions to the page, but I disagree with some of them. Including numbers in figures (not artwork) is found in scientific journals, and is easier to understand. This page is for the public in the end. The figures I have added follow those from journals and are cited. There is active research for developing new methods for C-H activation as well as using available methods, so I'm not being "gullible". The slides are cited, what's the issue with that? You can find them on google. I'm still fixing up the page, adding explanations, more examples and am reworking the page entirely. Thanks, Sarmalkow (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Two points. First, thanks for the message and second, Wikipedia has guidelines, which you are encourage to learn a little about.

First of all, yYou dont own the article. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. We all edit each others work all the time. Routine. And experience shows that students homework assignments could almost alway be improved - do you agree? Some specifics: The term "recent" becomes stale in a year or two in the encyclopedia, no one is using Periana catalysis for methane activation. Ever. Why refer to him with a title Prof? etc. We prefer to avoid words in artwork. You are not writing for the US only, what if other language Wikis want to use the art? they are stuck with the English in many schemes. Yes, journals do that but they also copyright their artwork, Wikipedia does the reverse, we share our artwork. For many Wiki readers, English is not their language of choice. See this Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry#Reactions.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that WP is public and anyone can edit any article. I don't need a lecture on that. How is a student homework assignment relevant? "Recent" is relative. Periana catalysis was in the article previously; I just moved it into a different section. Even if it isn't used anymore, it still provides context. The prof title was in the article previously. What words in the FIGURE (it's not artwork)? Guided and Innate? It lends to making the content more digestible, or that's what I understand (look at the article, they do it). I'm not writing for just those that read English, yes, but two or three words in a figure doesn't ruin it. You can say the same about color; color in a figure isn't helpful for those who are color-blind. WP is for the public, including those that aren't familiar with the subject. Hence, removing introductory information to contextualize an idea isn't conducive toward achieving that goal. Oh, and removing the figure from reaction conditions...that figure has been on the page forever. I'm still adding to the page. Also, if you're going to talk to users, take the time to check your spelling and grammar.Sarmalkow (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll address one point: use of numbers to identify structures in an image. The fundamental problem is that it ties the image to the article at the point it was created. The image becomes less usable in other contexts. And the article itself becomes less editable because if the images get shuffled around the numbers get out of sequence. And if new images are created, they need to sync with the same numbers previously used for each compound. For example, there's no need to put any number in "File:Steric Effects Figure 1.png" because it's the only structure there and there is no other use of it elsewhere in the article--one can just say "the image above".
Okay, I find I'm headed into some other points...The experimental results (specific catalysts and their product ratios) can similarly be removed and simply described in the text (since it really is just text anyway). Or simply omitted altogether (Wikipedia focuses on secondary references, so seeing this specific set of primary data is possibly too detailed). Even the filenames such as that one's emphasize how tied to "the current writing of the current article" it is rather than being a sharable image on a centralized server for an article that will evolve over time. DMacks (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess I just find figures with numbered compounds helpful. I agree with the figure containing only one structure, but disagree when multiple structures are present. And if this is an issue, why do other pages contain words and numbering in figures? i.e. Cycloisomerization, Cieplak Effect, Wittig Reaction, Horner-Wadsworth-Emmons reaction. I was simply trying to improve a page in need. Sarmalkow (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I know that two of those articles you mention were written from scratch (including the images) within the past few days by editors who also are new to Wikipedia. It's not unusual for new editors not to know the local style guidelines and conventions. Some of those are even worse in that the "Figure #" is part of the image itself, making the article highly resistant to any edit that would insert, remove, or re-order the images. I vaguely remember a discussion years ago generally disfavoring "Figure 1" and the like (not specific to chemistry articles) but I can't find it in the Manual of Style at the moment. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sarmalkow, thanks for engaging us. This time of year, and again in the spring, Wiki-chem gets a burst of homework assignments, like yours. These students are trying to do the right thing but how could they possibly know the guidelines? Unfortunately, instructors are rarely involved and also do not know Wiki-guidelines. U.S. students especially seem rarely mindful that Wikipedia is highly international, with the consequence that artwork can be shared over many languages, hence our encouragement that you edit your ChemDraws. Another characteristic of homeworky projects is that rather than making incremental, integrated edits, which is the way Wikipedia tends to grow well, students drop a large and often self-standing essay that does not integrate well (like your compound numbers) into our exsiting content. Understandably: students are looking for a grade and they are rarely going to come back to Wikipedia and "clean up after themselves." So now you know some perspectives, we wish other students did the same, but you got picked on and your classmates did not. Let us know if we can help. One way you can help is to pass on this advice to your instructor! --Smokefoot (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be grateful that information is added? It helps everyone out. I think the approach to familiarizing new editors is just a little harsh. New editors are just trying to help, like seasoned editors. Thanks for the insight. Sarmalkow (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are being a little harsh, or actually frank. Wikipedia is the recipient for a lot of homework, all well intentioned, maybe slightly naive.... So what we are trying to say is that with a little tweaking, your (and your fellow students') contributions could much more helpful. But point made about rule, harshness, my bad spelling, etc. Good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with the "thanks for contributing" and the value added by even good content that is not up to great style. And I also echo the need to get feedback back to the instructors about how they can better work with Wikipedia and help their students understand/become more quickly accustomed to the nature of Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

disingenious[edit]

Per this, and because of the disingenious replies you put there today, I state that you are not welcome on my userspace any more. Don't edit there. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You might be reading a little more into my queries, but whatever. We all have bad days. I am not sure one can or would want to ban another editor from leaving a message, but one could always delete the message. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
q.e.d. -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

removal of See Also links on EDTA page[edit]

Hi, I understand you may not be familiar with the preservatives used in ocular pharmaceuticals, but it would have been polite for you to follow up with me (or any online source) to educate yourself first, rather than just reverting my edit. WitheredLimb (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the note and sorry to have behaved impolitely. I saw that someone else deleted your see also link. For the EDTA article, if we made a see also link to every app of this common chemical, it seems that the list would be quite long, dont you think? --Smokefoot (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
They weren't apps you deleted, they were alternate preservatives to EDTA used in ocular pharm. Increasingly EDTA is used instead of BAC, so I have added EDTA to BAC page (as well as other 3rd gen and 1st gen preservatives). For completeness they were also added to EDTA page. Don't see an issue with listing alternatives - there actually aren't that many. Am getting used to my edits being reverted. Think I might be in the wrong place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WitheredLimb (talkcontribs) 05:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
You are definitely not in the wrong place. And I can be an aggressive editor. So the collision of your relative inexperience with my ways is surely frustrating. You handled the situation perfectly: with a note to the deleter. The other angle you can take is, if you think my action was ill-advised, is revert what I did with some comment (explanatory or semi-snark).
I avoid giving advice because I am no guru, but here goes. We all get absorbed in our specialties and are keen to share our hard-won insights. The problem is that our pet knowledge (mine too) is often rather specialized. But then our edits run the risk of violating this guideline WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Smokefoot (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

KClO4[edit]

Hi.

Just a quick note to let you know I saw your comments and have been clued.

As my father (rest his benighted soul) always said: live and learn.

Roger Roger -Dot- Lee, Aviation Geek, perpetual student, amature scientist (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually kinda agreed with your removal of those weird names, but have become so politically correct that I sent the message to you. Best wishes to you and your father's soul, --Smokefoot (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:ENI[edit]

Hi Smokefoot. Regarding this thread. Did you mean to say 'should not allow' rather than allow? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lead styphnate may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 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:
  • :(C<sub>6</sub>N<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>}MgH<sub>2</sub>O + Pb(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub> → (C<sub>6</sub>N<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>}PbH<sub>2</sub>O + Mg(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub>
  • <!-- something messed up here:C<sub>6</sub>N<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>}PbH<sub>2</sub>O → Pb(CN)<sub>2</sub> + 4 CO<sub>2</sub> + 1/2 H<sub>2</sub> + H<sub>2</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Zinc phosphide[edit]

Thanks for that. Never come across zinc phosphides before - so quite interesting- a semiconducting rodenticide no less. The coordination of Zn in Zn3P2 is approx tetrahedral, P is 6. A bit weird- the structure is sort of fluorite like but as not all T holes are filled the coordination is 6 of the vertices of a distorted cube. ZnP2 has infinite P chains- anions if you like limiting ionic structures although its a semiconductor too. The structure images we put up in wikipedia do not always do the coordination justice particularly when the coordinated atom is close to the edge of the unit cell. Regards. Have a good seasonal break.Axiosaurus (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Smokefoot! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fullerenes[edit]

Re. "Undid revision 641402623 by Ankababel (talk) conflict of interest, cite a review by someone else" -- this is an odd remark to make. In most or many cases only one review is cited. A review is a review -- it covers many viewpoints and should be impartial.Ankababel (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Pulp and paper industry[edit]

Re. "(Undid revision 641569121 by Ankababel (talk) not encyclopedic content - there are lots of interesting debates)" -- this is just style, I removed the "interesting debate" phrase previously. Why don't you just rewrite? Anyway I've done it now. Mea culpa for using unfortunate phraseology. Or are you just anti-nanotech?Ankababel (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Smokefoot: Thanks for the comments. So far, the students are quite enthusiastic if a bit nervous. I am also new to this media, so I appreciate your comments and look forward to suggestions in the future!Dbzam (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

UG contribs to WP[edit]

Hello Smokefoot

I know that you've been using students to contribute to WP for several years, and I was wondering about doing the same. We're just setting up a new course here at Bristol on the theme of Chemistry in the Digital age, and WP seems like a good topic, especially as that's now the default source for anything they want to know. Would you be able to give me a quick rundown of what you do with them / potential pitfalls / benefits?

Thanks,

Chris (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be glad to help. First of all, we contribute through a course that is mainly a lab (synthetic inorganic/organometallics for advanced undergrads). This Wikipedia article is worth about 10%. Here are some aspects:
  • I do ‘not emphasize Wiki-formatting'. This assigment focuses on teaching them to write about chemistry and learn how to copy-edit, not learn Wikipedia techniques (although they are free to do so, and many do). To this end, in the past few years, I have set up the articles, precluding their need to even register (I realize that Wiki-central command views student involvement as a recruiting mechanism but I have not seen that trend after going through hundreds of students). The skeleton articles that I establish, illustrate referencing, chem box, linking. You can see this approach with the history of iron boride. Similarly, we have shifted increasingly to article improvement, again avoiding their need to register) as illustrated by lead styphnate.
  • We try to write shorter articles and this is probably our greatest weakness compared to typical multi-page student essays where they learn a lot about a big area. The emphasis however is on editing as much as creating content.
  • Students work in teams. I have about 30 students and supervising 30 articles is too much work to do well (in the past courses we have uploaded many more). Employers of my students want them to demonstrate an ability to work as teams. I am highly focused enhancing student employability. Only a fraction are aiming for professional schools - and they tend to write on academic topics such as Transition metal alkyne complex, Nitrogen-15 NMR spectroscopy.
  • Students must get their draft article approved by me as a Word document before they can upload to Wikipedia. It is refining this Word document where they actually learn the most and where I do most of my work - about 2-3 drafts.
  • I de-emphasize graphics. Probably nonideal, but students are not very good at ChemDraw and I am picky. We could do more at pdb and csd images, but again this aspect of the course emphasizes writing not drawing.
  • We spend a lot of time figuring out topics. For some appealing topics we just cannot find good general sources, so we dont pursue those. We are increasingly turning toward improving existing articles because we are running out of topics and so many existing articles could use help in select themes.
  • Although the course is on inorganic/organometallics, I figure that for undergrads just learning to write about any chemistry is healthy, so we write about all sorts of topics. I also meet with them to identify their professional interests, the point being that articles might enhance their employment aspirations and hence their devotion to their topic. Some of their diverse interests have been in beer brewing (see Humulone), perfumery (2-Methylundecanal), pesticides (Pentachloronitrobenzene), antibiotics (Yersiniabactin), explosives (lead styphnate). These are employable topics in the US. Naturally, they write a lot of inorganicky articles too, which are not coupled to employment.
  • I prohibit students from discussing tox or safety or environmental aspects, despite the fact that I am a tree-hugger myself. Googling on chemical topics mainly turns up tox - safety - environmental content, often crufty, but I want them to write about hard core chemistry. Students are always ready to fill any article with all sorts of health and safety stuff - easy to get and easy to write about, but not very chemical (unless they figure out the chemical mechanism of tox, etc).

--Smokefoot (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I'll take that all into account. Chris (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Silver(I) fluoride[edit]

Hi ! Thanks for your editing. I did reinsert the lab prep bit but maybe we should discuss this (I made a note on the talk) as I'm new to Wikipedia and not so au fait with you do articles. I'd be very grateful for any help ! --TatanyaGolding (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Xenon Difluoride[edit]

Thanks for the pointers. I'm not sure if any secondary sources exist for XeF2 etching for MEMS. Maybe I should write that paper :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrisPister (talkcontribs) 21:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

looks like neat stuff. No chemist would expect XeF2 to be good for anything outside of research lab. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My edit to 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? The words "dicarbon trihyrdogen trichloride" would actually be its chemical name using the correct systems. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. People dont use that name. Its not a big deal.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The appellation "dicarbon trihyrdogen trichloride" does not specify where the chlorine atoms are located in the molecule. The 1,1,1- prefix specifies the three chlorines are located on the #1 carbon atom. The isomer 1,1,2-trichloroethane is also possible. 1,2,2-trichloroethane is the same as the 1,1,2- and so the lowest numbering is used. Similarly, 2,2,2- is the same as 1,1,1- and again the lowest numbering is used. The hydrogens are understood to be placed on the carbon skeleton as needed wherever there are no substitutions. According to the IUPAC naming system (IUPAC claims its naming system is the official one.), 1,1,1-trichloroethane is used. H Padleckas (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
... and again, people dont use that kind of name/appellation no matter how many numbers one puts before or after it!--Smokefoot (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for help, Smokefoot and welcome to my new semester[edit]

Hi Smokefoot- thanks for dropping by my course page and giving advice on chemical pages. We haven't chosen our topics yet, although I imagine some chemical pages may be in for some work by my class. I read the thread you recommended, and don't believe my students have been guilty of dropping entire essays into the midst of existing pages. We focus on developing tight paragraphs of information to add to stubs or start class articles. Let me know if and feel free to jump in, of course, if you notice one of mine not following the chemistry rules. I'm fully connected with the Education Foundation (trouble keeping up with the name), used their new page wizard (nice!), and have a couple of them helping out with class. Hakeleh (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hakeleh: , the main thing is thanks for the response. The greatest problem Wiki chem has with homework projects is that the students get in over their heads and the instructor is missing in action. The result is that the student insert newsy or narrow Google-able citations in order to meet some quota. I am sympathetic that it is difficult to select areas in Wikipedia where broad, not narrow information is missing. If you look at Education Program:Louisiana State University/CHEM 4150 Environmental Chemistry (Fall 2014), students added low quality content on poorly conceived topics. All of those students contributions were wiped clean from Wikipedia, I recall. I have taught many courses using Wikipedia as a component, and it is a fair bit of work, expecially topic selection and guiding sourcing. Good luck because I know this is hard work, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Hi Again, Smokefoot. We've chosen many different chemistry pages to work through this semester, and I see that you've visited most of them. Its great for the students to know that they are connecting with a very large community of Wikipedians. Several Wikipedians have worked with my courses over the past several years, and our contributions to Wikipedia have been improved, and the student's experience enhanced. I invite you to spend some time looking at the contributions made through my courses Hakeleh. Unfortunately, thus far, our experience working with you has been very disappointing. I'm referring to the many very insulting comments you have made in response to my student's initial postings on the talk pages of the articles they are beginning to work on. For example: 'When you say "different chemicals that are polymerized" you sound chemically illiterate. It will be difficult for someone with such a weak grasp of our language to contribute useful content?' This was your response to someone's comment on an article TALK page. This is insulting on so many levels, I can't even begin to list them. Also, on many article talk pages, you left a statement like this "Please talk to your teacher about how grown-ups do bibliographic searches in the sciences." I feel condescended to and nervous about contributing further to wikipedia from reading this comment, and I can only imagine what a young adult would feel when faced with this type of 'input'. A key component of this type of assignment, as you likely know, is training in how to find good sources. We've been doing that. The bibliographies listed on the article talk pages are the initial sets of references, and many may not even be included/ used in the article improvements that end up on the main article page. In response to the 'grown up' comment from you one student spent time investigating the list of references YOU added in response to their bibliography and found that, in contrast to the list of sources they listed, your list included sources that were unavailable and that had in fact already been eliminated from the list of sources they will use for the WP entry. This example brings up another very important point: the amount of my time and my student's time that has been used toward reacting to and responding to your input. This is time that could have been much more productively used by all of us to do what we want to do, which in this case is to improve Wikipedia entries. If you feel that my student's contributions to the main article pages are not up to par, we welcome your constructive input. If you feel compelled to add demeaning and insulting comments to their entries, please first contact me with your complaint and I will work on constructively addressing any and all issues with my students. Also, we are currently following the plan for developing Wikipedia entries developed by the Wiki Education Foundation, which includes listing potential references and a contribution plan on the article talk page. If you have issues with this format for student contributions, please discuss it with them.

Thanks for the input. In my experience many or most courses contribute bad content to Wikipedia-chemistry: where students focus on word count, who seem to have little instruction on searching (Googleable, US-centric), and whose work gets little intervention by the instructor. Furthermore, I do think that comments like "different chemicals that are polymerized" is distinctly unpromising for would-be editors at Wikipedia. For an in class essay, that level of awkwardness about "chemicals" is fine, so I wanted to loudly warn them that the standards are higher if they intend to contribute at Wikipedia. I also reminded them repeatedly not to go after these compounds as if they are evil, which has been a pattern previously.
Obviously, these are my views, which you may not share and, to some extent, find very offensive. I saw no other way to get their attention. And even with my semi-shrill comments, we almost never see expected responses from these students who supposedly are reaching out on the talk pages. Obviously they are not reaching out, but simply blurting out statements of what they will do, whereas editors here expect cooperation, consensus, and conversation over plans. I and others were expecting responses from the students like "Got it, we are just learning how to use Web of Science" or "We are cognizant of WP:MEDRS" or "Thank you for suggesting reviews that we had not considered, but why don't you think our sources are not as good?" or "You're right, we were being too US-centric."

Finally, you can however also see that rather than simply complaining, I on several occasions suggested some good reviews for the students to build on. Those reviews are the foundations of their content. In any case, good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Organic Semiconductor notability[edit]

Why do you think the device created by Dr. Peter Proctor and Dr. McGiness was not significant? If there is an organic semiconductor device that was developed before theirs show its picture and WP:UNDUE goes away. I learned about the switch from the Smithsonian chips collection. Are you suggesting the Smithsonian institution is not reliable? Although it could be, the article by McGinness, Proctor and Peter Corry "Amorphous semiconductor switching in melanins." Science 183.4127 (1974): 853-855. has been cited 312 times since its publication in 1974 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/183/4127/853.short. That article documents the work which led to the device's creation.

Citations for the above article. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=205685824019020802&as_sdt=20005&sciodt=0,9&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhotep (talkcontribs) 17:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, and I really appreciate the note. Two things on my mind
  • 1) Proctor was a major fraudster and bully on Wikipedia, who turns out to be an embittered quack who sells hair-growth cures. He promoted this device insufferably (there must have been 6 copies of this image across Wikipedia). The article on McGiness exists only because of his student Proctor's efforts . McGiness was an ordinary scientist who published a nice paper. See John McGinness. If McGinness contribution were notable, he would have been recognized professionally with awards and such (academicians are very good at decorating each other). None of the extensive Nobel literature (reviews by the three prize winners) even mentions McGinness contribution.
  • 2) To most researchers and technologists, "organic semiconductor" means a well defined synthetic material. The revolution in organic semiconductor area was the preparation of well defined materials that enabled structure- property correlations. These innovations led to a Nobel Prize to Kitagawa et al., which motivated then editor Proctor to wage a belligerent campaign on any Wikipedia article that praised the achievements of these Nobelists. Hints of his efforts remain in the organic semiconductor article, Proctor's point being that everything the Nobelists were recognized for was done well before them. It is disappointing to me that readers who do not know a lot about the field will the impression that McGinness's contribution was important or that doped melanin is representative of the well defined materials that captured the imagination of the world when Kitagawa et al announced polyacetylene.

In any case, that is my 2 cents. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

undo revision on photobleaching page[edit]

Hi Smokefoot, I saw your rv on the photobleaching page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photobleaching&diff=422545059&oldid=422509572

I agree that the paragraph you removed was too arcane for the article. However, I do think that the greater point (that there are various strategies to improve photostability) is important for the article, and that the citation should be kept. Richard☺Decal (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi and many thanks for the note. I am pretty distracted now to think about this but will do so probably on the weekend. Wikipedia is dealing with a lot of unsupervised students being forced to add content for Wikipedia, and I can be a little too hasty in my edits of their contributions, which are usually not very good. If you think that my edit should be reverted, feel free. We can discuss later. Thanks and best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Methyl formate[edit]

Smokefoot, first off, I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize in advance for any errors in etiquette. I saw your edit to mine on methyl formate and wanted to discuss, rather than go back and forth in dueling edits. I did not add the reference to Foam Supplies and Ecomate, but just wanted to clarify that Foam Supplies holds the patent on using methyl formate as a polyurethane foam blowing agent (trade name Ecomate)...and also add that PU foam is used for more than just insulation. I guess this could be considered "commercial", but it is factual and I think relevant (just as BASF is mentioned right above as a producer of methyl formate).

One thing that I do feel is misleading in your edit is to say that methyl formate "has also been considered" as a blowing agent...since it has been in commercial use as a foam blowing agent since 2002. Here is reference showing it has been EPA SNAP approved since 2003: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-08-21/html/03-21425.htm

Again, I am new to this and hope this is the right approach to take.

DrGeorge888 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well the main thing is thank you for your time and consideration. It is usually very irritating to have one's work mangled or modified. Go ahead and revert my edit. I assumed that you were pushing a commercial item, and we are very leery of that kind of activity. A large fraction of edits from newcomers is solely to support some cause of theirs, Happy editing and, since we now know each other, feel free to ask other questions. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's good to know that someone is "policing" these articles from purely commercial messages. DrGeorge888 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just saw your new edit, and I think you left out some words? What about something like the following? Because of its high vapor pressure, it is used for quick-drying finishes. Methyl formate is also used as a blowing agent for a wide range of polyurethane foam applications under the trade name Ecomate, patented by Foam Supplies, Inc., as a replacement for CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs due to its zero ozone depletion potential, zero global warming potential and zero volatile organic compounds. [4]. It is also used as an insecticide. DrGeorge888 (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

YOu are welcome to re-edit. The reason it is a blowing agent is its volatility, and I was trying to unify that property into multiple uses. I was also trying very deliberately to avoid the term "Ecomate" which seems parochial (probably some US brand) and ephemeral (brand names come and go). The global warming bit sounds like a sale pitch to me, even if it is true. These are probably niche apps, the big kahuma being formic acid. My guess at least. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the last sentence in that paragraph?[edit]

You reverted my edit, which is fine. I am usually willing to defer to you in things like this. However, I believe that the explanation clearly shows the intent to separate the absorbtion of salt and then the lowering of pH. Only the latter would be the case if hydrochloric acid were the intended compound. If you concur, please revert your reversion.

Riventree (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have thought about it, although it is possible that these old-timers or low-tech chemists are cheaply making HCl, but it doesnt really matter. Now about Rogalite ... You have my attention. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Rongalite smells like spam to me. Checking "What links here", I note that it's only referred to as "Rongalite" in a positive context, whereas the negative contexts have been converted to chemical terms (sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate) which redirect to it. It's got a chemical data panel, but it's listed by a trademarked name. This is not the way we handle (for instance) Phisohex or Rohypnol. I suggest the page be moved to sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate, and redirect from Rongalite.
For what it's worth, your phrase "You seem to have thought about it" is pretty rude. Yes, I actually read the paragraph I was editing, and actually thought about it before I changed something. I assure you that's how I normally proceed. On the other hand, you seem to have failed to do either before reverting my edit. Perhaps the shoe fits better on that (Smoke)foot.
Riventree (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't intend my comment in a negative way. My speculation was that you had thought about the process so deeply to convince yourself to insert the temporal aspect when none was mentioned. I wouldnt have thought so deeply but would have taken the process description at face value. Oh well, its always curious how these off-hand remarks can get read when one would never draw that conclusion verbally.
About Rongalite, I encourage you to get that article renamed. It may be one of those terms like Kleenex that has just become generic. Ullmann's Encylopedia uses the term a lot. I would not draw any particular conclusions about the lack of negativism in its description. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Meaningful user page"[edit]

I have to say this edit [2] is rather shocking from such an experienced user. I'm not sure where you got the idea that having anything at all on your userpage was even remotely a requirement for low-level user permisssions, but I can assure this is not the case and as far as I am aware never has been. And of course asking "who are you" is way, way out of line. Permisssions requests are about reviewing a users contributions to the encyclopedia, not who they are and what they choose to put on their userpage. In fact, in the hundreds and hundreds of permisssion requests I have personally reviewed I don't recall a single case where a userpage was relevant.

Frankly I think PERM doesn't really need extraneous comments at all, but it certainly doesn't need comments like that. Please don't make comments like that again, they do not help admins make decisions and only get in the way of what is supposed to be a fairly straightforward administrative process. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I definitely got that you are agitated. For those contributing technical content, it is very helpful to know something about the editor, at least for me, but apparently not for you. We all tend to read too much into little notes we leave around here, so dont let my opinions weigh on you. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not that I'm agitated, it is that remarks like that one are unhelpful, get in the way of what should be a simple administrative decision, and are contrary to our policies. It may be your opinion that you need to ask such things, but I think you will find that pretty much nobody who works at PERM would agree with you and would instead find such comments an unwelcome and unhelpful obstruction. So please, don't do that again, regardless of your opinion on the merits of such questions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It was my intention to be helpful, not unhelpful. I was not trying to cosy up to the newish editor, but tell them what I thought. So, I am sorry that you and your colleagues are cross with me. If my well intentioned remark offended you or the editor, I extend my apologies. In the chemistry sphere of Wikipedia, which I mainly inhabit, editors with blank user pages as well as those unregistered are often problematic. If you want to get a sense of this pattern, look at the editing at water fluoridation, a technology that alarms a small but fierce group of opponents. You will see that the disruptive edits tend to come from those unregistered or with blank user pages. You must have noticed that pattern elsewhere. But hey, this thing is not that big a deal to me and since you seem to have a lot of experience, I will definitely think twice before suggesting to another editor that they say something about themselves or their intentions on their user pages. Thanks for taking the time to advise me. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hydrogen spillover[edit]

Could you have a look at Hydrogen spillover for me? It was recently created in one go by a single-topic editor but for all that the scope seems broad and the content legit (although better referencing is required). I'm usually wary of essay dumps like this one, they're often full of holes but this isn't a topic I'm familiar with. I was wondering if you had any insights. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing a set of article drafts for a research study[edit]

Hi Smokefoot! I'm helping some researchers run a study on Wikipedia and I'd like to ask you to be a collaborator on the project (not a research subject/participant). We need someone with experience reviewing new chemistry articles to help us control for some confounds in the study. Given your background in reviewing drafts, it seems like you've got the kind of experience we're looking for. Would you be willing to discuss the details with me? See m:Research:Impact of Wikipedia on Academic Science for more information about the study. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Homework[edit]

Dude wrote this as a homework assignment: Transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation of the Tiara bio-prosthesis. It's in wiki-limbo with tags a-plenty. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A tidal wave of mediocre content coming from these classes. But we cannot blame the contributing students, their labor is forced upon them in the form of homework assignments. Oh well, life goes on and its only Wikipedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha you didn't take the hint and nominate it. :-) I hate doing that stuff. There needs to be a bot that will AfD things at the press of a button. Softlavender (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bromochlorofluoromethane[edit]

Why did you delete the molecule photo and the information about its synthesis? DudeWithAFeud (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your contributions at least for text in the chemistry sector are deficient and misleading, so please stop until you talk to your teacher, parents, or someone around here for advice. About the image, they look awful and did not emphasize tetrahedral nature of methane derivatives. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Those really clean molecular structures[edit]

How do you make those really neat molecular structures like the ones at hydrogen cyanide, properties of water, carbon dioxide, etc. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about the stick diagrams, unfortunately you have to buy ChemDraw. Pricey but super versatile. Esp the PC version. It is given to me from the place where I work. There are similar drawing programs that are free that are slightly inferior. In the Manual of Style for Wiki-Chemicals, some of these options are described. If that does not work, let me know. Looks like you have a good program for drawing the 3-d structures (the ones that I complained about), what do you use? --Smokefoot (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I use avogadro. has info on millions of structures. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)