User talk:Reconrabbit/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions regarding User:Reconrabbit. This archive spans the period of time from 28 November 2023 to 11 January 2024. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Welcome!
Hi Reconrabbit! I noticed your contributions to Black powder substitute and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! HemlockVR (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Reconrabbit! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 15:07, Wednesday, November 29, 2023 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Chem
What does this sentence from bromopentane supposed to mean: "They are occasionally prepared as a more stereoselective halocarbon than chloropentanes."? --Smokefoot (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- I wrote it in reference to part "4.5.6.7 Chlorination Versus Bromination" in the book cited, that bromination is more selective than chlorination. Looking at it now the section is much more general than I thought at first and what I wrote is extrapolating from what was said, but there still might be room to mention the stereochemistry of bromoalkanes compared to chloroalkanes (might not be useful in relation to bromopentane specifically though). Reconrabbit (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The statement and your explanation make little sense. Compounds are not selective. Reactions are. I'll remove the statement from bromopentane. That way you can reassess. Feel free to ask on talk pages if you are uncertain about projects.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Structure drawing
User:Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for your input. After going through the options available I've been trying out ChemDraw 22 for structure drawing. It has some pretty annoying quirks that I haven't worked out - making ionic charge brackets consistent, for one. I've put my first drawing up on barium sulfite. Is this up to par with what these should look like? Does BIOVIA have better options for aligning atoms and the drawing components? Reconrabbit (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I rarely draw inorganics, as my background is as a professional organic chemist. In BIOVIA draw you can enter a IUPAC name and it will usually give a reasonable drawing for simple inorganics. (Menu: Chemistry -> Generate structure from text -> IUPAC name.) I've just tried Barium sulfite and got a perfectly reasonable drawing that looks like Ba2+ with a counterion that's symmetrical with charges shown on two of the three oxygen atoms. I personally prefer that to diagrams with dotted bonds/resonance structures or massive brackets around simple components (except in polymers) but that's a matter of taste and your drawing is similar to the one for calcium sulfite so I certainly wouldn't complain about it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- The barium sulfite picture is fine (of course, it's incorrect in many ways for the specialist since naked dications don't exist and Ba-OH2 and Ba-OSO2 interactions are probably involved). But for this project, we indeed like to depict simple compounds showing polyatomic anions or polyatomic cations in the way you depict. The list of articles lacking images is complicated because so many legacy articles were and are written by kids who are barely chemically illiterate. Also many articles exist on poorly characterized inorganic materials. In terms of the organic compounds on the list, many appear to be drug candidates, some of which will remain obscure forever. Keep it up, you might find something big that is missing a drawing or an article .... those are the gems. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- One improvement: sulfite is nonplanar. So change that.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'll make the adjustment to tetrahedral arrangement when I can. Will do the same for calcium sulfite, which is what I referenced. There are still plenty of pages that are going to be tricky to find appropriate images for like fish oil (medical use) or magnesium (medical use); the chembox in these isn't exactly providing the same information. Reconrabbit (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch on calcium sulfite! Do not feel any pressure on the many articles with no image. Many of them are junky.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now I'm stuck on this again. Is the ideal structure we're looking for one that shows the tetrahedral structure in the manner that sodium sulfate does? Or should the brackets be omitted altogether? I'll do my best to make a compromise with the newly updated image for barium sulfite, and use the same method for sodium sulfite and calcium sulfite if acceptable. Reconrabbit (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I quite like the current sodium sulfate picture. It uses a simple 2Na+ for the sodium, where there's no shape to show, while giving the correct shape for the sulphate and, given it is using dotted bonds and therefore the negative charge is delocalised over all four oxygens, it places that inside a bracket with the charge outside. I definitely dislike sodium sulfite as presently shown, since 1) it reverses the drawing (i.e. would be "sulphite sodium") 2) it doesn't show the correct shape for the sulfite and 3) it puts sodium into a bracket that doesn't help comprehension. All that said, total consistency is almost impossible and your offer to help would, IMO be best spent making new drawings for the compounds that currently don't have one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- You could mimic the sodium sulfate structure and then remove the top O to give pyramidal SO32-.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- The specifics on this are really helpful. Thank you! I'm going to go ahead and make up some more images for the inorganics that I can find later tonight based on this, and link them here. Should that go well I will take the initiative to create those images without constantly coming back here. Reconrabbit (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I quite like the current sodium sulfate picture. It uses a simple 2Na+ for the sodium, where there's no shape to show, while giving the correct shape for the sulphate and, given it is using dotted bonds and therefore the negative charge is delocalised over all four oxygens, it places that inside a bracket with the charge outside. I definitely dislike sodium sulfite as presently shown, since 1) it reverses the drawing (i.e. would be "sulphite sodium") 2) it doesn't show the correct shape for the sulfite and 3) it puts sodium into a bracket that doesn't help comprehension. All that said, total consistency is almost impossible and your offer to help would, IMO be best spent making new drawings for the compounds that currently don't have one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now I'm stuck on this again. Is the ideal structure we're looking for one that shows the tetrahedral structure in the manner that sodium sulfate does? Or should the brackets be omitted altogether? I'll do my best to make a compromise with the newly updated image for barium sulfite, and use the same method for sodium sulfite and calcium sulfite if acceptable. Reconrabbit (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch on calcium sulfite! Do not feel any pressure on the many articles with no image. Many of them are junky.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'll make the adjustment to tetrahedral arrangement when I can. Will do the same for calcium sulfite, which is what I referenced. There are still plenty of pages that are going to be tricky to find appropriate images for like fish oil (medical use) or magnesium (medical use); the chembox in these isn't exactly providing the same information. Reconrabbit (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- One improvement: sulfite is nonplanar. So change that.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- The barium sulfite picture is fine (of course, it's incorrect in many ways for the specialist since naked dications don't exist and Ba-OH2 and Ba-OSO2 interactions are probably involved). But for this project, we indeed like to depict simple compounds showing polyatomic anions or polyatomic cations in the way you depict. The list of articles lacking images is complicated because so many legacy articles were and are written by kids who are barely chemically illiterate. Also many articles exist on poorly characterized inorganic materials. In terms of the organic compounds on the list, many appear to be drug candidates, some of which will remain obscure forever. Keep it up, you might find something big that is missing a drawing or an article .... those are the gems. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Inferior refs
WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY are your guides. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've been trying to limit my sources to books that have specific chapters on what I reference and review articles. I did have trouble getting more than just the second reference on silver halide though I know it should have a broader pool to draw from somewhere. I just removed several primary sources I added to 1,4-Butanedithiol per this.
- My bad on nitrosyl perchlorate - I should have realized it wasn't accurate by the fact that it didn't even include a triple bond, but was going off of the only reference image I had available from PubChem. Reconrabbit (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- The NOClO4 drawing was perfectly reasonable for 99.99% of people, so no shame there. And the most important thing: you recognize that O-N=O angle would be bent!
- Most of the articles that might be suitable for people learning chemistry would be difficult to expand upon because someone with a PhD has already scrutinized them. At least that is my impression. The articles that are very, very thin are often super obscure and not worth much effort. Even experienced editors are dedicating their efforts to obscure rare earth and actinide compounds because they have run out of topics.
- BTW, I do cite primary refs even if I rant against others for doing so.I seek refs that describe the structure of the compound or the primary ref is highly cited (checking citation rates is useful). If a Wiki article is notable but has almost no refs, Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar, or Web of Science can be helpful. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
In appreciation
|
The Good Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Mercury (element) retain its GA status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
- Thank you! Reconrabbit 16:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Linga Balija
I thought about doing a mass rollback, but the edit history is so completely garbled that I don't even know what would plausibly be the "last good version". That said, if someone is able to ferret one out, going forward I'd be fine with using that as a reset point for future improvements. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm only familiar with the article in this iteration, but as far as I am aware it has been the project of a single person who attempted to create it multiple times and succeeded just recently, only to be blocked. Most if not all of the IP edits following the block have a similar editing pattern, including the large copied passages inserted into inline citations and long unordered lists. Reconrabbit 14:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks!
hois, didn't think I would find another furry so soon on wikipedia ~tayanaru (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- We're everywhere, some just aren't as open with it.
- By the way, I read your Draft:Francon snow depot. I think you could write a more comprehensive article if you wrote about the Francon quarry in general, since it does not have an article already and is the subject of ongoing discussion for several decades. Plenty to write about, compared to the depot, which is just one use of the quarry in its history. Reconrabbit 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Brussels sprout. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. The source you mention does not give a timeframe, and it does not specify that brussel sprouts were first grown in Louisiana. It simple says "French settlers in Louisiana extensively cultivated brussel sprouts". Meters (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I did a search and found information relevant to this passage in a secondary source (Cambridge World History of Food). It states that the cultivar was introduced to the United States in the 19th century, with reference to Food & Drink in Britain: From the Stone Age to the 19th Century; I have some doubts about the validity of the source on the UGA website following this as I can't find any other sources that show Brussels sprouts coming over as early as it says. Reconrabbit 22:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- So first you removed a cn, but now you are challenging the validity of the claim? So which is it? Meters (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the cn (in error), then later after researching it removed the statement about French settlers and changed it to reflect only what was stated about commercial cultivation from the WGU source. I used the World History of Food to state its introduction in place of the original statement that had a {{cn}}. The book states the following: "Brussels sprouts were cultivated in England in the seventeenth century and appear to have been introduced into the United States in the nineteenth century, although exactly when, where, and by whom is unclear (Fenton and Kitchen 1956: 76–7; Carcione and Lucas 1972: 25; Wilson 1974: 203)." Reconrabbit 23:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- So first you removed a cn, but now you are challenging the validity of the claim? So which is it? Meters (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brussels sprout. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. What are doing? You removed the mention of French settlers with the summary "Removed mention of French settlers as there would not be any by the 19th century" .There certainly were French settlers in Louisiana in the 18th century. They were evicted from what is now Nova Scotia in the mid 1700's. We have a source that says that brussel sprouts were being grown by French settlers in Louisiana. And that same source mentions the 16th century use in Belgium, so why are you adding a cn for that fact? Just reuse the ref. You claimed to have read it so you must have known the information was there. Meters (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, I'll refrain from making any more changes. Reconrabbit 02:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Brussels sprout, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- What did I do? There was a square bracket in the article space, which I deleted. Reconrabbit 02:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am under the impression that something is seriously wrong with my end of things - I did not intend to make any changes other than removing a punctuation mark that was erroneously placed. Reconrabbit 03:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that we published an edit at the exact same time, which resulted in this behavior. I won't be making any more edits there. Reconrabbit 03:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- I made my edit at 2:38. At 2:39 you undid my edit, removed a typo, and left an edit summary that mentioned only the typo. If there was an edit conflict you should have gotten an message rejecting your edit and telling you that there was an edit conflict. If you were editing on old version of the article (i.e., from before my edit) you should have gotten a warning telling you that you were attempting to save an edit on an older version. Meters (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why I didn't get an edit conflict message. I had no intention of reverting your edit. The header of the page did not say I was editing an old revision either. Reconrabbit 03:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- There must be a bug where the system does not catch this situation. Still, it would only have happened if you opened an edit window before me, but took longer to delete one character than I did to open the article and rewrite a whole sentence. Just nuke the warning if you want. Meters (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- It just occurred to me it might have happened because I went to fix the typo and realized I could not publish without disabling my VPN, so I hit the "back" button a few times which means I was editing an "old revision" at the time. I did make a series of stupid errors, so I kind of deserve it. Reconrabbit 04:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- And my apologies. I wasn't aware that type of race condition error could happen. Meters (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- There must be a bug where the system does not catch this situation. Still, it would only have happened if you opened an edit window before me, but took longer to delete one character than I did to open the article and rewrite a whole sentence. Just nuke the warning if you want. Meters (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why I didn't get an edit conflict message. I had no intention of reverting your edit. The header of the page did not say I was editing an old revision either. Reconrabbit 03:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- I made my edit at 2:38. At 2:39 you undid my edit, removed a typo, and left an edit summary that mentioned only the typo. If there was an edit conflict you should have gotten an message rejecting your edit and telling you that there was an edit conflict. If you were editing on old version of the article (i.e., from before my edit) you should have gotten a warning telling you that you were attempting to save an edit on an older version. Meters (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)