User talk:Itub

Attention: I dislike fragmented discussions. If you leave a comment for me, I will most likely respond to it in here, in this same page, on my talk page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, always feel free to respond to it there, on your talk page. Remember we can use our watchlist to keep track and know when each other respond to each comment. But also feel free to send me an alert in here about a new message on your conversation side, as I might do it as well.

Thank you!

Ibero-American

"Hi, I see you added a note to Ibero-America regarding the Catalan-speaking population of Spain. This is of course correct, but I think that it is going to be problematic to try to classify the countries by language because several countries (including, but not limited to Spain) are multi-lingual. There's also Guarani, English, Nahuatl, Euskera, Gallego, etc... So I suggest getting rid of the language classification altogether (or at least try show the languages in a more general way that doesn't give the impression that there is only one language per country). What do you think?"

I did so because there are three sections in the article Ibero-America, as you can see: Portuguese-speaking, Spanish-speaking and Catalan-speaking. I thought it was good to add the note next to the Catalan-speaking one to say that the Catalan is also spoken in Spain. Other languages such as Guaraní would not fit in what I did, because we don't have a section called Guaraní-speaking. We neither have a section called Basque-speaking, in which "New Basqueland" and "The Independent Basque Country" are listed. If we had this situation, we could add a note that said: "hey, in Spain the basque is also spoken". But since the basque-speaking peoples do not have an independent state, they do not appear as an independent section in the Ibero-America article, so we don't mention them. But as we already have a section for the catalan-speaking countries (Andorra), it's good to add the note I added. I'm not sure if you understand what I mean xD Onofre Bouvila 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

List of publications in chemistry

I have reverted your deletion on List of publications in chemistry and put that and the new addition you added up for debate on Talk:List of publications in chemistry. That is how things are done. See the guidelines we agreed some weeks ago on the talk page. I have recommended deletion of the external link and keeping your excellent new addition. Please keep contributing to this page. Regards, --Bduke 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Itub 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Henderson-Hasselbalch

Heyas, thanks for your limitations section to the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation article. Most informative. -SocratesJedi | Talk 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that was what I wanted to say about bismuth. Thanks =

Steve 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Physical chemistry Hydroxide Plum pudding model Cyclopentadiene Benzimidazoline Rate-determining step Dihydrogen bond Pinacol rearrangement Amino group Petrochemistry Ammonium persulfate Pseudomonadaceae Deprotonation Aldol Lone pair Law of multiple proportions Allene Oxidizing agent Up quark

Cleanup Inert pair effect Gas-liquid chromatography Cumene process Merge Deposition (meteorology) Redox List of stable isotopes Add Sources Atomic theory Monochromat Reducing environment Wikify Probability interpretations Dithiolene Flat feet Expand Orbital hybridisation Pesticide poisoning Haber process

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:La Cucaracha

I left a message at the La Cucaracha's talk page regarding the wording of the lyrics, and provided some sources at least I consider more important than the normal amateur site. It went unanswered for more than two weeks before I decided to take action and change the las phrase. You jumped to revert my edits, leaving no reference of the "las dos patitas de atras" version nor any message at the talk page. What's more, you claim that to be the "real" version, providing no sources. I feel like reverting back to my version, but will let you explain youractions and source your position. I'll past this also at the article's talk page. Mariano(t/c) 08:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert ñ

I had reverted it because I guess something had gone wrong with the coding and the page was deleted. I tried refreshing the ñ page and it kept givnig me an error that it no longer existed, so I reverted it and it came back. Sorry, not hard feeling to whatever change you had made. --Speakslowly 23:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Beta-methylamino L-alanine

Thanks for your message about this article. I've expanded it. Take a look and improve as necessary. Thanks, Scientizzle 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a great expansion! Itub 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Note in History of Water (molecule)

Good idea:) Thanks! DMacks 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Visible spectrum

Thanks for your note. I'm not sure what the problem is either, but I'll put the word out for some help. Thanks again! -AED 21:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Circulene image

Thanks for point that out. (Was late at night :-( ) -- Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mexican Peso

Sorry about the flub on the conversion rate. I saw "currently" without any indication how current "current" was, and wanted to insert a date (and felt the need to validate that the rate hadn't changed since whenever "current" was). In case you're curious how I messed up: I got 9¢ (US) per peso backwards in my head. AdamRoach 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3-center-4e thing

Hi, I rewrote this article. I apologize if I seem to have lost some of your wording. You got this article off to a great start, and I could not resist. Feel free to revise what I put up. I will insert a figure soon. --Smokefoot 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented about the figure in the article's talk page. The only thing I miss is the mention of the equivalent representation in terms of resonance structures. I may add it later, but it sorely needs a figure too. :) Itub 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience (with my invasiveness) and guidance.--Smokefoot 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it's not like I own the article, I didn't even start it! The article is better now thanks to your contributions too. Itub 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Molecular orbital theory

Hi, I notice that you are interested in molecular orbitals. Thus, for you to note, I have just started the molecular orbital theory article if you are interested in contributing. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the energy and the last two edits by Hallenrm?

Either I've completely lost my mind, or I'm dealing with an invariably insulting editor who has an advanced degree in chemistry, yet really doesn't understand key parts of the physics of the subject. So, I'm asking for some badly needed RfC on the chem section of this article. I'm leaving an identical message for user:smokefoot and everybody else with a chem degree I can think of. Gracias for the outside view. SBHarris 09:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics in chemistry

Thanks for the help with the missing topics page - Skysmith 10:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-covalent bonding

I'm puzzled by your removal of the merge tag from non-covalent bonding with the reason "non-covalent bonding is important in the field of supramolecular chemistry according to Lehn". I'm not questioning the importance of non-covalent bonding. What I'm questioning is whether the Wikipedia articles currently titled non-covalent bonding and intermolecular interaction actually deal with different topics. My opinion is that they don't, and therefore having two articles is redundant. I don't have a strong preference regarding the title of the resulting article, though. --Itub 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your effort to organize, I have interest in supermolecular chemistry and although one could loosely merge these without to much difficulty, I reason that they should remain separate. Although I need to read more in this area, from what I understand so far Jean-Marie Lehn, the main founder of this field, who won the 1987 Nobel Prize for his work in SMC, defines “molecular chemistry”, as begun by Friedrich Wohler in 1828, as related to the making and breaking of covalent bonds. He contrasts this with the new field of “supramolecular chemistry” as related to the making and breaking of non-covalent bonds between supermolecules. Intermolecular forces, on the other had, is a more general term which may include the covalent bond if fashioned so. If you don’t believe me, look at this edit by User:V8rik, in which the intro definition of supramolecular chemistry is defined by the use of the term “noncovalent bonding. I hope this helps? --Sadi Carnot 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Halogen

Hi there! Just curious, why did you revert the numerous contributions made by James? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've detailed my reasons in Talk:Halogen. --Itub 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:James.Spudeman's edits.

Just thought i'd mirror what i posted to MessedRocker's page;

I've just spoken to him (James) on the phone and he's informed me that his account has been re-infiltrated again by whoever keeps using his laptop, most likely his son. He's been away for 3 days on a trip, so it's unlikely any of the things that were added were from him directly, and he wanted to explain also that he's looked at his page and will change it when he gets back.

He also informed me that his previous account, User:J.Spudeman was similarly infiltrated and the password and email changed so he was unable to recover it. Regardless, i'll see him on saturday morning and speak to him then, but i just wanted to give you the "heads up". Cheers, J O R D A N ^[talk ] 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Itub 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Peeling eggs

From the left, of course!:-)dick 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Timeline of chemistry

	The Chemistry Bond Star
	For helping get Timeline of chemistry promoted as a featured list. Thanks!

--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fully agree! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Hey, thanks for the star, and for all the work you did. Cheers! --Itub 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

X-center, Y-electron bonds

Do you have a list of all X-center, Y-electron bonds somewhere? I made a new template at Template:Chemical bonds and would like to add them to it. --HappyCamper 12:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a list, but I just added delta bonds, which were missing from the template. --Itub 12:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Depending on how specific you want the template to be, others you might want to consider include banana bond, coordinate covalent bond, hydrogen bond, ionic bond, covalent bond, metallic bond, peptide bond, noncovalent bonding, quadruple bond, quintuple bond. (Of course, most of these are not distinguished as X center, Y electron, but can be considered "types of bonds" to some extent.) --Itub 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't decided what to put in that template yet, since I wanted to avoid duplicating the items that are found in Category:Chemical bonding. And of course, you're always welcome to edit my templates. :-) By the way, if you have a picture of a particle in a box, that would be really nice...do you have access to a lab, where you could say, heat a cubic crystal of NaCl in some sodium vapor? --HappyCamper 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm a theoretical/computational chemist. I tend to break things when I go into a lab. ;-) --Itub 17:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, à la Pauli effect? Thanks for the chuckle. :-) --HappyCamper 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Francium

Thanks for all your help on Francium. Your constant input on the peer review, your support on the FAC, your solution to the solution problem, and your edits to the article itself are all greatly appreciated. If you ever have an article being peer reviewed (and I'm not already making comments there), let me know and I'll settle up the score. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Stability constant

I'm pleased to see that you are following developments here. This is the broader picture: I am proposing to replace Chemical equilibrium by user talk:petergans/draft and to replace equilibrium constant by stability constant. I have written Determination of equilibrium constants to complement these two. My qualification for making such a bold proposal is more than 30 years experience in the field my home page. However, I'm looking for some kind of consensus and your views will be most appreciated. Please respond at talk:chemical equilibrium Petergans 09:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ivan, let me clarify my position. It's not that I object to anyone editing the article, it's the fact that it has been done so badly. Let me give a few examples. You can still see the original at user:petergans/sandbox

Introduction: Adding a catalyst will fasten the reaction!

The expression for forward reaction rate has been separated from the defining equilibrium expression.

"Despite the failure of this derivation, the equilibrium constant for a reaction is indeed a constant, independent of the activities of the various species involved "!

Contradictory definitions

______________________

αA + βB $\rightleftharpoons$ σS + τT

...

$K={\frac {k_{+}}{k_{-}}}={\frac {\{S\}^{\sigma }\{T\}^{\tau }}{\{A\}^{\alpha }\{B\}^{\beta }}}$

...

$aA+bB\rightleftharpoons cC+dD$

The equilibrium constant K is defined as

$K{\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}{\frac {\left[C\right]^{c}\left[D\right]^{d}}{\left[A\right]^{a}\left[B\right]^{b}}}$

where [A] represents the chemical activity of the species A at equilibrium composition. Often (conditions are given below) these activities can be approximated by molar concentrations or partial pressures, giving the easier to measure and use constants K_c and K_p encountered in high-school chemistry courses.

_______________________

This last statement is fundamentally unsound and is one of the reasons why I undertook a re-write. In media of constant ionic strength there is no such approximation. Even Atkins may be unaware of this, but I can't say for sure as I only have the 1st. Edition (being the old inorganic chemist that I am).

"What this means is, the time derivative of the free energy vanishes, signalling a stationary point. This derivative is usually called, for certain hisorical and technical reasons, the free energy change[2]" What rubbish! he's quoting out of context. Even when one replaces the nonsensical time derivative by derivative with respect to the reaction coordinate it still does not make sense to equate a derivative with a free energy change. There's a real dilemma here: equilibrium is taught through kinetics in schools and through thermodynamics at University. I really object to schoollchildren being told "this theory is wrong but it gives the right answer".

"The most basic approach is to manipulate the various equilibrium constants till the desired concentrations are expressed in terms of measured equilibrium constants (equivalent to measuring chemical potentials) and initial conditions" again rubbish as it stands. If we say manipulate various expressions relating to the equilibrium, that's getting nearer to being meaningful, but the idea of measuring chemical potentials in this context defeats me.

$G=U+PV-TS=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\mu _{i}N_{i}$

He's pasted this in from the old article, but the notation is inconsistent with the notation given earlier. The same applies to the rest of the section.

It was for these reasons that I said his editing was irresponsible and wanted to start again from my original. It's hardly my job to correct his errors is it? I should be grateful if you would post some conciliatory remarks on the chemical equilibrium talk page - if the article is reverted to the original I will quit editing it. Like you say, I put a lot of time and effort into the revised version. I did it because I wanted to get the science right and reverting to the original will mean that the science in the article is not right. There's no way I could put it right by an series of incremental edits such as I have done, for example, with solubility product.

May I add that I declined to enter the entropy of mixing "debate" though in fact I initiated it with a remark I made to happy camper. You were, of course, right, but loom91 would not accept your arguments. His statement "Actually, it's more general to talk about entropy, because it is a more fundamental and universal quantity than Gibbs energy" shows him to have a poor grasp of thermodynamics.

Petergans 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, but I'm going away for a few days and I won't have time to do that until Monday. Please be patient, the world won't end if the article is not perfect for a few days. --Itub 06:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The content is identical with that of equilibrium constant, so I am happy to replace the content by a redirect, or you do it if you agree. Petergans 10:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Xe and SF6 mixing in lungs

See answer on my TALK page. And, BTW, sorry for mistakenly posting this first on your user page, rather than properly your TALK page! A breach of wiki-ettiquette I know better than! SBHarris 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)