User talk:Smokefoot

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

'Bold text For older material, see


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)


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?


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 That article documents the work which led to the device's creation.

Citations for the above article.,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:

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:

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 [1] 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)


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)

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)


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)


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)

Direct messaging[edit]

Hail, Smokefoot!

I wanted to send you a direct message about a new chemistry layout tool I'm working on, but you're not signed up for private messaging. I'm wondering if you could send ME a message with an email address I can use to get in touch.

Your email will of course remain private to me, no commercial blah blah...

Riventree (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but I am the world's worst Wikipedian for anything like that. V8rik, Edgar, and DMacks - folks like that would be better. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Edgar181 is already on my list. If you have contact info, I'm happy to ask the others, or you can point them my way. I have direct messaging so it should be easy for any of you to start the conversation.
Riventree (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 June[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) 00:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Separating organomercury from mercury poisoning is difficult, but there is some justification[edit]

SBHarris 04:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note, Smoke[edit]

I did not do anything to create the lede that I thanked you for correcting. I simply came to the article for information, and found a wikilink that was not justified. See Vsmith's talk page if you are interested. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, and anytime you want to correct my geochem, or inorg chem, please, please, please, feel very free. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. If the compound/article has sulfur in it, I usually have an interest. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
An Eric Block disciple? In my first graduate year, I had to do calcls and expts on the reactivity of the outer sulfur atom of thiosulfonate anion… enough to make me appreciate d-orbital contributions, but also to be quite sure I was going to be an organic chemist, mdr. Also, vis-a-vis the solids angle, my grad inorg Prof was the veritable and venerable Jeremy Burdett, and so I have a modicum of knowledge on orbital interactions, and the continuum from non-metallic to artificial metallic, etc. Cheers.

Secondary Sources[edit]

Have you looked at the article I cited from Science Mag? Its author is Robert F. Service. He's not one of the team who authored the research paper on the cyanosulfidic model. He's reviewing their work. He also quotes an opinion from another scientist in the same field who also was not one of the research team in question. This is a secondary source. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777:Not really, it is an editorial by Service, a technical writer employed by Science Mag. Reviews are written by real scientists, not professional writers. Its a pretty big difference that hopefully you will learn as you advance in your career. But you seem to be itching to promote Sutherland and Nature Chem paper. Oh well, lots of other people do the same as you and it is no crime. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I see it as a matter of acknowledging, rather than promoting...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course you view Service's article 'as a matter of acknowledging.' But you are evading the central point, Service's article is not a secondary source. Nice try though. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to discuss this in the talk page of the article?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to discuss the matter there and even transfer this conversation or link it. When we encounter a newish editor determined to cite in the manner you are - the situation almost always involves complication that precludes objectivity. Just don't engage in ref-spamming - the pattern of promoting the research of a single research group by citing the same or similar pubs in several articles.. Many new or WP:COI editors do this. Like I said, do yourself a favor and talk to your advisor about the difference between a real review and News and Views etc. There is also WP:recentism. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually not a new editor, nor am I aware of any COI. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. We can agree to disagree on need for those citations, but there is lots to do. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Resin 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:
  • ] (a [[Benzoin resin]]), [[Spinifex resin]], [[turpentine]]. Some are classified as fossil resins (amber, copal, damar, most are not, being labeled as "recent. Rosin is a solid [[resin]] obtained

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello Smokefoot, I would like to ask you to undo your last editing in the Dimethylacetamide article. Reasons:

1) "and may damage fertility or the unborn child. It is harmful in contact with skin or if inhaled, and causes serious eye irritations." Are the GHS hazard statements already mentioned in the table (H312, H332, H360) and additionally in reference 8 (European Chemicals Agency, Opinion on N,N-Dimethylacetamide (DMAC), 12 September 2014).

2) "because of its toxic for reproduction properties." is mentioned in reference 10 (Agreement of the Member State Committee on the Identification of N,N-Dimethylacetamide (DMAC) as a Substance of Very High Concern – Adopted on 24 November 2011)

3) The only information not referenced is the addition of H319 in GHS hazard statements (Causes serious eye irritation). However here the current Labelling according Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 ([2]):

Pictogram: Signal word: Danger

Hazard statement(s):

H312 + H332: Harmful in contact with skin or if inhaled Causes serious eye irritation.

H319: Causes serious eye irritation.

H360D: May damage the unborn child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football90 (talkcontribs) 08:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable request - why would unborn children be exposed to DMA? I am sure taht all sorts of things are dangerous to unborn children but I dont see the connection to DMA. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, this sort of label is put on so female workers who are pregnant do not continue work in environments where exposure to liquid or vapor would result in their experiencing a high DMA concentration in circulating blood, which might harm the developing child. Cheers mate. Le Prof (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look[edit]

I have a longstanding stalker, someone who reverts me almost in real time when I am making chem edits. It is purely personal, insofar as other chem editors routinely see and read the same text, and leave it. It dates back to me editing this editor's "owned" steroids article. Then he followed me to the natural products article, and has since repeatedly followed me, real time when he is on, or same day, to many, many articles that I sit when I log in. I have repeatedly had to drop editing at articles, because of his following me about.

I am not asking you to get involved in the personal issue. But his latest revert of my work came as I was trying to develop the ledes of both the triplet and singlet oxygen articles in parallel, before leaving it off to someone such as yourself to continue with. (I am an OChem and early preclinical drug discovery prof and pharma worker, and not a PChem/IOChem expert.)

I would ask you to look at the edits this editor made to the lede at the singlet oxygen article, in particular, the large redaction of material. I would also have you compare the ledes of the triplet oxygen and singlet oxygen articles to see what I was doing, before he followed me to there and removed the developing parallel structure between the articles (by removing and changing the lede of the singlet article). Here are links: [3] and [4] (note parallel language), and [5] (note change to paragraph opening, which paralleled the triplet article, and the removal of the entire introductory paragraph). That latter paragraph was intended as temporary, so that others could move material into the main body, as the Edit summaries and Talk section indicates. (But, it was not intended for part-and-parcel elimination.)

Three closing notes -- (i) I added another citation to the paramagnetic discussion at the singlet oxygen talk page, which I know from Dirac's page you are interested in, (ii) I came today to edit the lede in question, in particular to remove citations, which I have since transferred to the Structure section (so they do not have to be repeated in the lede). Still, the Structure section is weak, and needs expert attention. (iii) I am signing this from URL to prevent the editor from stalking me here as well. I can be found at User:Leprof_7272. Le Prof (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well you're not going to like what I have to say. I dont care for your style of editing. It seems pretentious, heavy handed, overly academicy, and your edit notes and tags seem snotty. Too many tags about imperfections. That having been said, its kind of a free-for-all here and it takes all types.
I dont think that you are being stalked. In fact I am grateful for Boghog's diligence because he is a better editor than you are. Do you really think that he wants to follow some academic twit around trying to keep the tone and style somewhat Wikipedia-like? I doubt it. So, if you are having trouble with Boghog, then you may be the problem. I would ask him/her for advice on what to do, because it looks like he/she has a lot of experience and knowledge.
I should say that I avoid conflict usually, my editing activities are some sort of therapeutic thing.
When I first stated editing, I enjoyed for a few days noticing the lack of rigor and derived a certain amount of smug pleasure from the sense that I knew huge amounts about certain articles that were semi-awful. But then I figured out that the regular editors here are essentially totally dedicated to article improvement, managing somehow to avoid nasty comments. Most editors quickly concede to a good argument on technical stuff.
One nice thing about Wikipedia is that the redemption of any user is only a few edits away. Your pointing out that singlet O2 is magnetic was a real coup! Converting that article's lede into something ponderous (IMHO) was unhelpful in my view. The idea is to slightly improve articles and keep them accessible.
Rather than complaining/tagging about poor references - fix the damn problems, one at a time. And for goodness sakes, stop lecturing us. We are doing good stuff. We do not aim for perfection. In fact, for some warped reason, I kind of like imperfect articles because that vulnerability reminds readers that this is a living enterprise and invites incremental upgrades.
Sorry to seem unpleasant. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
You personal opinions de moi notwithstanding, I would ask your WP chemistry opinions at these two Sections (Talk sections), say what you will. If you can offer an opinion, I would be glad to hear it. (Your objectivity and perspective have been welcome in the past.) Please see these two sections, [6] and [7]. You can also look to the diffs, where you know your way around. I have further comments to make regarding your assessment of me, but these can wait. Ponder, while you go (if you go, there, to the recent lead paragraph deletion at the singlet oxygen article) that the Welsh and the Belgians, peaceable folk that they are generally perceived to be, were, at particular moments of they history, particularly nasty pieces of work to those attacking. Thanks if you can take a look. Otherwise I will come back in a day or two. Cheers. Le CrétinLe Professeur morveux (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I just rewrote the disputed thing. I cant figure out what the arguing is all about and dont want to do super careful comparison of versions. I came to the article completely neutrally. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
TY. Le Prof (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
TY for your hard work there today, and for setting an example for how discussion can lead to community, rather than to an individual's desired outcome. The article is clearly better for your attendance.
Note, I posted a to do list for the lede, and please do not take offense. If I could, I would just edit, but it would only start a firestorm. It is better if I make some notes, and sit out. (And that is what I did.) If the editor in question agrees to stop following and hounding, I will gladly return to this article. But it has not happened yet, and so this. like steroids, natural products, and some others, are on the "do not touch" list. Cheers. Le Prof (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have prepared[edit]

...a brief response to your evaluation, and it is as pointed, and while not as critical of you personally, it may yet not be best posted here. (It is critical of this institution, pointed with regard to its trajectory, and critical of latitude allowed particular editors.) I am open to suggestions, but am willing to place it here, if there is no better option. Le Prof (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, you are welcome to put your comments here if you think that doing so will be constructive. Like I said, I usually avoid conflict around here, but you pressed me to be frank about my views of your editing style to the extent that I pay much attention to them, which I don't except to notice that you seem to be functioning as a grader. Your situation hopefully will resolve itself because the project would really benefit from additional expertise. It appears that the standards and style in Wikipedia do not match your standards and vision for what this venue should or could be. My association with this project is intended as a hobby for relaxation, so hopefully your comments will not undo that pleasant state of mind.
Hi there Le Prof, you are welcome to put your comments here if you think that doing so will be constructive. I am not any arbitrator (or is it arbiter) and dont want to be. I usually avoid conflict around here, but I felt pressed to be frank with you, i.e. that you seem to be functioning as a grader vs an improver. Few high flying scholars, retired or otherwise, find Wiki-chem satisfying, if that is any consolation to you. I have seen them come and go. My association with this project is a hobby for relaxation and general "do-gooderness". Well, I am rambling... In any case, thank you for the courtesy of checking. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Smokefoot, I would like to thank you for creating some drawings that I've used in the German Wikipedia for an article about polyferrocenes (and ansa-Ferrocenes). Maybe I'm wrong, but I hope you can also help me with respect to the technical applications of this class of polymers. Although I have found a lot of examples for potential applications, I must admit that I'm not sure if those are indeed already technical applications or just ideas. Any hint is welcome. --ZdBdLaLaLa (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. There are no applications for any polyferrocene that I know about, and I have looked. The original polymers were based on vinylferrocene and the more recent generation of the ring-opened materials derived from ansa ferrocenes. Neither are in the market place to my knowledge (despite the hype). Possibly, the only commercial applications of ferrocenes are the Josiphos ligands in pharma. Possibly some antiknock formulations use simple ferrocenes. A few companies have apparently invested in ferrocene-based redox sensors. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot, thank you for the answer. The ring-opened polymers look promising, but from the papers I found it was simply not clear if there were any real applications or not (and at least I would not use ferrocenes as antiknock additives; the precious metals on the TWC would most likely not like it). I will see if I can find something about the redox sensors. Again, thanks for your support and the quick answer. --ZdBdLaLaLa (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Slow down![edit]

Smokefoot, your over-fast intervention interrupted my major updates on the chemical "XXX," and I lost all the international footnotes I was just about to add!!!  :(

FYI, I was adding as I found items, which started in the U.S. (whose universities generally have more money, thus more findings, hence the greater number of U.S. citations to start with).

Next time, please use "talk" to fellow users, rather than intervening with changes -- please? And please wait more than a few minutes, in case a fellow user is still making changes to the entry -- please?--Aboudaqn (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn: Sure - I'll come back later. Please follow WP:SECONDARY (published refereed reviews and books) and remember that one state in the US does not speak for the world! California is a wonderful place but it does not speak for the world!--Smokefoot (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chloroform 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 molecule has tetrahedral molecular geomtry]] with C<sub>3v</sub> [[symmetry group|symmetry]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 October[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) 00:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


No problem. I was not sure about it. (Talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


After fixing this up a bit, I looked in the history and saw it's been often-created and often-redirected...most recently by you. I have no strong opinion or vested interest in it, if you think it's better as a redirect. DMacks (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I dont have a particular strong view either. I was following/helping what I thought Edgar was up to. And it looked like the creator was a turkey, not that I am supposed to say that. Thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) User:DMacks, Smokefoot: I'm happy with the article now. Its original incarnation was just a copy of a supplier's catalog page. But it is definitely a notable reagent in organic chemistry, worthy of an encyclopedia article. Thank you, both, for improving it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

KOH MP[edit]

I just posted a talk section on the subject here. I do have some reference books I could check, but I figured it'd be best to keep the source as transparent and publicly available as possible, at least so long as the discussion permits it. That said, if you think that we should cite the books, I'll gladly do that as well.

One note, though - I would guess that, though reference books hinge their reputations on the accuracy of their information, commercial catalogs are likely under legal obligations to ensure the validity of the numbers they present. I'm no chemist, though, so that's pure speculation on my part.

--BartholomewRSP (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting perspectives about how different kinds of sources hedge their reputations. But in Wikipedia, priority is given to conventionally books and reviews. Wikipedia studiously avoids commercial vendors. And on-line mirror sites. In fact, Wikipedia does not even view Wikipedia as a reliable source, I don't think. The rule book is WP:RS. Spoken colloquially, for professional chemists, the "Rubber Handbook" is the bible for data, and Ullmann's Encyclopedia is kind of the Encyclopedia Britannica of details. The Chem project is closely monitored by about 10 chem professionals, who rely on outside perspectives like yours to keep things ship-shape, so thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I'll go ahead and check the reference books later today. Thank you for your advice! --BartholomewRSP (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nervonic acid[edit]

Hi Smokefoot, I’m writing to you because are studying medicine in the University of Barcelona and we have recently edited nervonic acid page due to a biochemistry project. We would like to know why you changed some of the things we have posted. If you told us what is wrong we could try to improve the article. We would appreciate any information. Thank you.

Thanks for the note. I was trying to figure out what is going on with this page and concluded that you must be selling nutritional supplements! A really big issue in Wikipedia is the quality of the references. This policy is discussed here WP:RS and here WP:SECONDARY. This situation gets more serious when the references relate to human health. In that case the standard is very high, see WP:MEDRS. References to .com sources are often a problem. If you are medical students, then I encourage you to rely on great references - such as famous textbooks and reviews in the best medical journals (Lancet, NEJM). Feel free to ask some additional questions.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hydrogen alkalide[edit]

Hello, Smokefoot! I've seen your contribution to chemicals topics. I therefore ask you whether hydrogen alkalide based on cryptands (where both H+ and hydride ion are present) may have been reported in chemical literature?-- (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not 100%, but I don't think that there is a soluble form of even semi-naked H-. I also dont think that even Li- has been made using the methods used to get sodide. If you really want to get into the closest approach to H-, one approach would be to check out hydricity scales. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
How about naked proton cation in some compounds? Are there any? (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Well you are basically asking for the identity of the strongest acid. That topic is within the realm of superacids. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Do these superacids in solid state include naked proton cation? By the way, where can melting point data for the fluoroantimonic acid be found, which seems to be missing from that article.-- (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Can helium hydride ion be included in the superacids category?-- (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess if one wanted to play games, then every article could be expanded ten-fold with all kinds of weird and wondrous ideas and possibilities. Wikipedia is mainly focused on serving people operating in the real world. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Category: Acetates and Category:Formates[edit]

Please take a look to the category acetates salts (and formates salts) ... this is pure chaos! Take a look to all articles and the boxes too ... Please consider also the inorganic nomenclature, first the cation and then the anion! Regards, a german chemist, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be a little-messy but "pure chaos" might be overstating it. In the past 50 years, there is no difference between inorganic and organic nomenclature. Organometallic chemistry put an end to that! The chemboxes are carefully and regularly monitored so if you see problems, please, please, please alert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry- many people would be very interested in helping to fix problems that you detect. Auch, bin ich anorganischer. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So please correct all the other articles too: Formates, Nitrides, Acetates[edit]

have a nice work ... I corrected the last articles similar to the others acetates, formates, nitrides ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You quite obviously don't know what you are talking about[edit]

The splitting of water, frees oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen is used to produce ATP. The hydrogen exists as ions not H2

From the wikipedia article on Photosystem II : "The hydrogen ions (protons) generated by the oxidation of water help to create a proton gradient that is used by ATP synthase to generate ATP."

I don't need to provide a reason for edit an article, such remarks are a "courtesy." When you know for a fact that an edit is wrong then revert edits otherwise you need to show the wisdom of leaving them alone. I suppose you called one of your friends in to start an edit war. That is just plain childish and weak. Do I need to call in someone else on this nonsense. I would but I consider myself too old and wise to resort to such childish nonsense. Zedshort (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I needed to call in a someone experienced. I dont know Boghog from a Adam, he is just an experienced bio-editor who might straighten things out. He could be counted on to remove anything dumb I might write too. So please don't accuse Boghog of being my dupe.
In any case, chemists and biochemists are generally careful to distinguish hydrogen and protons. Anyway, its simple, as far as most of us are concerned, there is NO H2 in anything above algae. Nada. Humans have some in our gut, but that comes from microorganisms down there, not us.
In terms of not leaving an edit summary, you are correct - there no obligation to leave one, its merely a courtesy. But courtesy is not only nice, it facilitates process by communicating with colleagues.
The trick here is not to let oneself get cornered or angry, because then we screw up and say things we regret. Been there, done that. In any case, peace. —Smokefoot (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2015


You have the same problem too many people in this world have, you fail to hear what people are saying to you or you fail to read what they have written. Rather, what you do is hear what you want to hear and read what you want to read and that typically is what flatters you most. That is a display of vanity and foolishness. I said nothing about the production of hydrogen molecules but you hung your criticism on that and continue to address that issue. I don't care if someone is an "experienced editor" of this or that subject, they first must know the basic principles of the subject before they edit or revert someone else's edits. Wikipedia is chock to the hilt with very bad writing and I intend to correct what I see. At a minimum, stay out stay out of the way while others straiten out the convoluted writing that exists here on WP in a plenitude. A horse designed by committee is called a camel, and most of the articles on WP read the way camels look. Finally, your labeling my edit as "baby talk" is pathetically silly and beyond the pale. Zedshort (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Jeesh. Please consult other technical editors since you are so displeased. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Vanadium Sulphate[edit]

I have had : 1 Highschool, 1 Community College, 2 University Chemistry Classes ... and I do keep up with the University of Nottingham Chemistry account on YouTube (that has millions of viewers as it is good telly).


The Vanadium Sulphate references were inherited from the core Vanadium text.

For some unknown reason this compound is vastly underresearched in spite of the possibility of it helping with respect to the global obesity and Type 2 Diabetic pandemic.

It is unusual that this compound is primarily derived from Diesel Petrol (and high grade Gasoline) refining. It's really bad for Diesel combustion, but somehow good for primates...

I really should add it to a list I am working on:

The items the Canadian TV Show How It's Made has not shown being made.

-- A screensaver from the output of the How It's Made work via a friend I know (so have a laugh) : http://HIM.scr

Eyreland (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Be careful, this kind of area is filled with bullshit. All sorts of nonscientists are after some sort of elixir, and are surprised that various salts are "underresearched". There is no (zero) natural role for V in mammals. Vanadium is common in petroleum because the porphyrins which result from decayed chlorophyll (ancient plants) have a high affinity for VO2+ as well Ni2+. Inorganic chemists at UBC have looked at the biomedical angle involving vanadium.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of the elements
As far as I know, all elements must always be capitalized since c.1550. The common names for compounds don't have this requirement. The label names (on sold products) for elements and compounds, by ISO practice -- must be capitalized. Probably for safety reasons, I would expect that there would be a requirement to capitalize dangerous chemicals so as to allow them to be noticeable in text. My view is that chemical safety regulation universally trumps all rules that grammar regulators might lay down, as about 99% of the grammar people have never had a chemistry class. Not all chemical elements or compounds need to be capitalized all the time, but the dangerous ones need it absolutely!

A lot of grammar regulators don't even have enough since to come in out the rain -- for example most grammar guides never cover 'man' (as in 'Manhole') as being borrowed from Saxon -- and that 'mann' is actually gender neutral in nearly all Germanic languages.

Eyreland (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RE chemical names being capitalized: If you have a good source for doing please alert the community here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Otherwise such format will be changed.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
...and be sure your basis is stronger than IUPAC's 2004 recommendation not to capitalize chemical names. That's the basis cited for Wikipedia's current practice to not do so either, as noted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Capitalization of elements and compounds. DMacks (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous reference[edit]

Hi there! I see you made two refs with the same name here. Do you still have the material available to fix it? Palosirkka (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. Thank you. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)



Regarding (Undid revision 694267113 by Jazzlw (talk) appears to be plagiarism), is it plagiarism to copy relevant information from another wikipedia page (from epoxy)? It seemed like it was good information and that it wolud be relevant to the page I added it to. I was unaware copying from one page to annother was bad, but if it is would you give me a bit more info on the subject?

Thanks! Jazzlw (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the note. There is no problem copying things within Wikipedia, but I found a report on-line that was very similar and it is likely that the section we are discussing was taken from there.

From "The simplest resin of this class is formed from reacting two moles of epichlorohydrin with one mole of bisphenol A to form the bisphenol A diglycidyl ether..." the section I removed: "The simplest resin of this class is formed from reacting two moles of epichlorohydrin with one mole of bisphenol A to form the bisphenol A diglycidyl ether..." --Smokefoot (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. That makes sense, and explains why I was confused. I see you also fixed the epoxy page where I found the content. Thanks for clearing that up! Just out of curiosity, how did you find out about it? Is there some bot that alerted you to it?
Thanks again Jazzlw (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
the language looked too slick for the usual editors - me included - so I Googled a word string. cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chlorine 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:
  • Chlorine is used extensively in [[polymer]]s and in [[organic chemistry].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


re your [8] in Silicon dioxide: "how to remove Jmol?"

Well, you did! The Jmol link is derived directly from |SMILES= input (is what SMILES is for right). So removing SMILES removes Jmol :-). -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep:, I keep meaning to look into a |jmol_override_SMILES= or similar field that could suppress the jmol or take an alternative SMILES string to use for it. There are a bunch of compounds, especially some classes of organometallics and multicomponent clusters, that the SMILES is reasonably correct but translating it to 3D gives wildly incorrect structure. In some of those cases, one could write an alternate structure descriptor that is too nonstandard to be useful for database searches but does give a correct diagram. DMacks (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
DMacks@ Noted. -DePiep (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


Are Avdarsan and Pierpaolo.cordone students in a class together? Any idea what their academic level or project scope is? DMacks (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but seems like a good guess. I just rewrote the Hinsberg contribution. If you prefer what was there before, feel free to revert my work.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
What you wrote is definitely an improvement. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement. Somehow I feel uneasy/guilty/arrogant running roughshod over these new editors. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newbies[edit]

This kind of thing nearly kept me from ever becoming an editor. It would be nice if you could explain when you revert someone's first edit. Just saying. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Will be more attentive to not biting. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote: Alexa Brown[edit]

I made a vote on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. I encourage you highly to vote on whether Alexa should or shouldn't have a separate article. Thanks. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I just dont know enough about the particulars to offer a useful vote. Good luck with your editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Sure about that? It sounded to me like it "was actually done" rather than "was only talked about". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me check again. It read like it had not been done for PhCHO itself. Thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for keeping an eye on the chemistry in the concrete article - to answer your query, the cement actually contains the calcium silicates and aluminates rather than oxides as such (see Portland cement), although the silicates and aluminates are often written in ceramists' oxide notation (e.g. 3CaO·SiO2 rather than Ca3SiO5) because cement chemists are fundamentally lazy. Actually, any more than a few percent free CaO in true oxide form in Portland cement is extremely harmful to the material performance (causes cracking, loss of strength and general sadness, as well as lawsuits), while crystalline SiO2 or Al2O3 would be mostly unreactive. The basic definition in the EN standard (EN 197-1) is: ″Portland cement clinker is a hydraulic material which shall consist of at least two-thirds by mass of calcium silicates (3CaO·SiO2 and 2CaO·SiO2), the remainder consisting of aluminium- and iron-containing clinker phases and other compounds″. - I think describing it as being oxides (as it was prior to my edit) was imprecise and may lead to confusion. Johnprovis (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I knew about the weird jargon used by ceramists. It is actually fairly useful way of looking at things since it keeps the focus on component ratios. BTW, if you know anything about plaster or stucco, please look at those articles. I wrote a lot of the content from a very cursory reading. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Will do.Johnprovis (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Man I love contributors like you guys. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

citation needed HOOCCOOH[edit]

The reason I flagged in was the 'also written as' bit, ie 'yeh who writes it that way' I would have rather deleted: (also written as HOOCCOOH) But I sometime I think there may be a reason, so if someone cites it, showing it is on common use, fare enough. When I come back, after some time, no citation, I'd delete it. I presume there is a term for such notation but it is not used in lead paragraphs in WP (in my experience), and here it stuck out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talkcontribs) 22:01, 10 January 2016‎ (UTC)

User:EdChem added the name of this notation, and I wordsmithed it to avoid User:Mimarx's concern of this particular one being commonly used. If the concern was only "who writes it that way" (rather than "is this a chemically correct, albeit obscure, way"), it would have been clearer to put the {{cn}} at the "also written" itself. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
User:DMacks' wordsmithed version is definitely better than mine, but Smokefoot was correct that HOOCCOOH reflecting structure and connectivity HO-(O=)C-C(=O)-OH does not need citation. EdChem (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ed and DMacks, thank you for helping out. It's a diverse community, in many senses of the term. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

n-Butyllithium query[edit]

-Reflecting its "electron-deficient character," n-butyllithium is highly reactive toward Lewis bases.-

I know this wasn't originally from you, but am I wrong in saying it is incorrect to describe BuLi as having electron deficient character?

Cheers, Tom

I would describe BuLi tetramer as electron-deficient for sure. Most molecules with 3-center-2-electron bonds are electron-deficient since molecules typically prefer 2-center-2-electron bonding. BuLi has the property of reacting highly exothermically both with acids and with (Lewis) bases. The acids zap the nucleophilic carbon centers (electron-deficient molecules can be highly nucleophilic, another complicated concept) and bases zap the Li centers which are really hurting for electrons, needing to subsist on sharing carbanionic ligands to utilize the valence orbitals. Its pretty complicated, so I use that kind of mental image. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kaveh Sina edits[edit]

All copyvio, no need to try to fix the wordings. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boranes 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:
  • | Examples include hexaborane]] (B<sub>6</sub>H<sub>10</sub>) and [[decaborane]] (B<sub>10</sub>H<sub>14</sub>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Molybdenum disulfide 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:
  • MoS|2}} using a [[pin on disc tester]] at low loads (0.1–2 N) give friction coefficient values of <0.1.<ref>{{cite book| author =Miessler, G. L. and Tarr, D. A. | title =Inorganic Chemistry, 3rd Ed|
  • ..8..497L }}</ref> {{chem|MoS|2}} also possesses mechanical strength and electrical conductivity), and can emit light, opening possible applications such as photodetectors.<ref>{{Cite web|url =

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Kinetic data for for amides and alkoxides[edit]

Hi, Smokefoot! I want to ask you if you are aware of sources of kinetic data for the synthesis of metal amides and alkoxides using alkali metals? Thanks.-- (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: See also talk:sodium amide and talk:sodium ethoxide.-- (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw your notes, but did not have any special insights. These reactions are heterogeneous, involving solid Na and liquid ROH or R2NH, which complicates mechanistic analysis. It seems likely that someone has looked at the mechanism or at least the process chemistry from an engineering perspective. For a related homogeneous reaction, possibly someone has examined rates of electride + ROH/R2NH. Qualitatively, you kinda know that rate of reaction correlates with acidity and steric properties of the alcohol or the amine. The old classic book on alkoxides is by Mehrotra. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
How about the reaction of sodium with water? It seems a rather trivial reaction, has it been investgated kinetically?-- (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I would not know. If one wanted to study that rate, it has almost certainly been done homogeneously for solutions of Na in ammonia, which slowly gives H2 and NaNH2. The trick would be to remove catalytic impurities. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


For adding Ullman citation to Ethoxylation. I don't have access to it from where I was at, to add pg nos. / section nos, to narrow the citation when I formatted it, so I have to leave that to you, until I am back. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

By the standards prevailing at Wikipedia Chem, it is my opinion that we do not need page numbers in citations for these articles. You and I just need to agree to disagree on that point. If you want to further elevate your concens, the way to go is the Chemistry Project Talk page. So, I am going to remove your tags about pagination, even though I again realize they were added with the best of intentions. Your tagging leaves a reader the reader with the impression that the article is shabby or flawed, whereas it is a reasonably informative overview of a big area of technology. Wikipedia-Chem has so many articles without even key secondary references, that my goal over the years has been to just address that glaring. For that purpose, I usually rely on Ullmann. Then, at some future time, maybe we can back-fill with page numbers. I appreciate that many readers do not have access to this source, which is protected by a pay-wall, but at least these citations give credence to the gist of the articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice edit[edit]

Lovely. A word whittler after me own heart. Too much verbal underbrush in these things. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Water fluoridation[edit]

I don't understand how your comment, "And the CDC is involved in yet another coverup.." [9] is relevant to improving the article in any manner, so I thought it would be be best to remove it. The comment comes across as baiting/harassing/mocking Jdkag. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a response, starkly perhaps, to the editor's innuendo that the CDC would promote a "neurotoxin" as one of their "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century". If one seeks to frame "fringe,"which is the direction the conversation was going, it might include challenging a major agency in the most advanced country. So my comment is not mockery but blunt rebuttal. At least in my view. Thanks for leaving a note though.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That explains it well. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Just wanted to say thank you for your advice and edits on the Triphenyl Phosphate page. It definitely helped to have the pages you linked as guidelines while I was writing and doing the research. While the class project part of it is pretty much over, I'm still interested in working to improve the article, so if there's anything that sticks out to you as needing work, I'm happy to take a shot at it. Awalsh621 (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert on jojaba oil[edit]

Good afternoon.

What part of the added history seemed like an advertisement? The added paragraph was about Native Americans, the second about the oil's use. The third addressed the first commercial use and the fourth about later such uses, which are business history. The fifth continued the topic and sixth related to the IRS. Why remove everything without exercising discretion? Thank you. Hugoott (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Hugo H. Ottolenghi

Thanks for the nice note and the opportunity to discuss.i recall that there were about 5 citations to some .com source., which is basically hawking stuff and is not a good source. The bit about native americans was already in the article. I removed the conjecture beginning "It is believed to have ..." Further comments or discussion welcome. The topic interests me too. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Bioconversion of Glycerol to 1,3-Propanediol[edit]

Hello Smokefoot!

Thank you for the quick respond to my new article "Bioconversion of Glycerol to 1,3-Propanediol", although you entirely redirected it to the article "1,3-Propanediol". I know and already saw that there is the microbial conversion mentioned but it is the details about the reactions, which are e.g. involved enzymes and especially the inactivation of the GDHt, that I wanted to highlight and explain with my article. I think it is worth mentioning.

Maybe we could consider adding these informations to the "1,3-Propanediol" article.

Kind regards, TBen1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBen1111 (talkcontribs) 12:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi Smokefoot. About a month ago you mentioned Chirality. What sort of changes did you have in mind?

From a brief look at Chirality#Chemistry, it might benefit from a slight expansion to mention some of the most important effects of chirality in chemistry. I would have thought biomolecules and pharmaceuticals were worth mentioning. Another obvious point that is not mentioned is most physical properties of enantiomers are identical, and any properties that differ are those involving interaction with other chiral things like circularly polarized light or reactions with a specific enantiomer of a different chiral molecule. --Ben (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ben. I forgot whatever grand plans I had. As I recall, there was some assault on this topic by the notorious tagger LeProf and then we were going to counter with some improved content. But that was some months ago and I have moved on.
Again, quite a catch on MoCl6, which I immediately built out from. BTW, did you check CSD for PhIO, because the polymeric structure would be welcome. My impression also is that it is often hydrated. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. Good strategy. LeProf is an interesting case. On paper, he could make very valuable contributions: he has expert knowledge and is a self-confessed university professor. However, in practice he seems to get into disputes and writes excessively long and detailed articles that demand to be read in full (or not at all!) rather than being dipped into as people generally do online. I get the impression LeProf thinks Wikipedia should be a handbook intelligible only to experts in the field.

MoCl6 was interesting, I have a lot of respect for the German approach to inorganic chemistry. I checked for PhIO but there's nothing. The 1994 article referred to in iodosobenzene (Orpen etc.) found it to be a completely amorphous powder. The 2014 computational paper there didn't have any more experimental details to report on the structure of PhIO, so I just provided the diagram used in both papers as I found it useful to picture the concept. I get the hydration thing, similar to periodic acid. I'll keep an eye out for any information on that. A very similar molecule, PhAsO, shows the obvious preference for single bonds by forming cyclic oligomers. I've discussed it at Talk:Phenylarsine oxide and will probably add it to the article if no-one makes any comments within the next few days.

If you see any other articles that need 3D structures, or have unlikely double bonds, let me know and I'll do them all in one go. --Ben (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Seppelt paper is impressive. The German approach to inorganic is extraordinary, in part because the participants know the fundamentals so well. A snarky response to that success story is that German inorganic world got taken to the cleaners by US/UK approach to mechanistic work, platinum-based catalysis, and bioinorganic. I will keep looking for ArIO compounds.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Calcium 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:
  • compounds of calcium, occurring naturally as [[limestone]] and [[chalk]]. Above 825&nbsp;°C), it converts [[calcium oxide]] (CaO), also known as quicklime. When added to water, quicklime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Pyridinium chlorochromate[edit]

Hello Smokefoot,

Three questions.

First, for [C5H5NH]CrO3Cl, why is the chlorochromate anion without brackets?

go ahead and add them, they are probably appropriate


With tertiary alcohols, the chromate ester formed from PCC can isomerize via a [3,3]-sigmatropic reaction, the Babler oxidation. Other common oxidants usually lead to dehydration.cannot be oxidized directly.

I hope I got what you meant by changing it to this?

Messed up by me, sorry!!

With tertiary alcohols, the chromate ester formed from PCC can isomerize via a [3,3]-sigmatropic reaction, the Babler oxidation. Other common oxidants usually lead to dehydration because such alcohols cannot be oxidized directly.

And third, in chemical reactions that involve typing in some articles in Wiki (like the one in my first question), why do I often see extra spaces outside the pluses and arrows? (Are we following the French?! Face-wink.svg)

Extra spacing between +'s and especially →'s is my quirk but it is my own, and I'm not French. In my opinion, there should be more spaces between +'s and even more separating arrows, for the sake of clarity. But its my thing.

Cheers! Georginho (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful work and the nice message about what could be seen as interference by me.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Smokefoot! No problem, no such thing as interference! I'm going to tweak the page tomorrow. By the way, I also copy the reaction line and paste it somewhere. It appears that the number of spaces isn't translated; so, they all become one space. Cheers!
Georginho (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Organic electronics 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:
  • molecules include [[polycyclic compound|polycyclic]] [[aromatic]] compounds such as [[pentacene]]] and [[rubrene]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Watching you[edit]

Going thru the fluoropolymer page history seeing you making many edits. New to Wikipedia editing. Didn't take long to see how you made edits and couched their nature in broad language designed to hide some of your intended activities. Your changes under health and environment are worrying. I'll be watching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan 00010110 (talkcontribs) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. There are a lot of editors who are attentive to innuendo's or misinformation sneaking into articles by deceit or ineptness/sloppiness. So no problem. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I am in need of an experienced editor's eye[edit]

Smokefoot, I am asking for your opinion on this suggestion. I don't need you to publish your thoughts, just shoot me an online message. There are several other cases where I am suffering from the same challenge, and I'm hoping you might offer me some guidance. I took a couple months off after a previous go-round with this specific difficulty, and the cooling-down period doesn't seem to have made much difference. I'm wondering if you have any insights.

Thank you
Riventree (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That topic is just too far away from my area. I will add that, as a particularly helpful editor, you are encouraged to drop the recommendation you made on that article because for whatever reasons, some other experienced editors feel strongly otherwise. Not sure why the language is so strong, but it is best to gulp, assume good intentions, and move on. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 June[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) 00:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi Smokefoot. I don't understand your revert. In any case, it seems to be inappropriate to do it without any explanation/edit summary, because the IP edit cannot be considered as (obvious) vandalism. --Leyo 19:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You might be right, especially for that chemical. I should have explained. The editor seemed to be adding generic and what I thought was redundant and non-useful safety information. Lots of editors who are incapable of adding intelligent content, make themselves feel useful by adding such generic content. The Web is awash with such material. Wikipedia could fill every article with page after page of such content, but my feeling is that long generic, redundant warnings about various chemicals. One of these days, I will try to initiate a discussion of policy because there is a balance between having respect for chemical safety and keeping such content under control. So, revert if you think that I am wrong, and most of all thanks for taking the time to contact me. Right now, I am on a crazy schedule, but hope to get back to normal editing in a week or so.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 July[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, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Food coloring 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:
  • known as "[[Azo compound|azo-dyes]]", proved problematic as potential precursors to nitrosamine]]s, which have been implicated in cancer.<ref name=JK>{{Citation |last= König |first= J. |editor-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

KAVI data on glycolic acid wiki[edit]

Hello Smokefoot,

The information I just entered into this wiki was originally inserted by KAVI on August 19, 2009. The content has since remained but its source (KAVI) has been removed. I am attempting to re-insert the source of this data.

Mattias — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAVI Research (talkcontribs) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Here are the reasons for my removal: (1) your addition looked like a conflict of interest based on your user name and the .com site and (2) Wikipedia does not like .com sources. If I am mistaken please say so. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Smokefoot. The glycolic acid wiki has references from DuPont and CrossChem, both manufacturers, like KAVI. The username I created seeks to create a distinction between the retail arm of KAVI and the R&D arm. The source page referenced,, contains clinical data and should be very useful to those researching glycolic acid's pharmacological applications. Please let me know if this might be acceptable to you.

Mattias — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAVI Research (talkcontribs) 17:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Smokefoot, I noticed that you removed/reverted my edits to glycerol, stating: "NOTTEXTBOOK and pedantic".

I added a section on stereospecific numbering and naming as this is very important in understanding the nomenclature of plasmalogens. The stereospecific nomenclature is not adequately explained on any of the existing Wikipedia pages and most appropriately fits within the page on glycerol, since glycerol-derived biochemicals are almost always described using the sn (stereospecific numbering) system.

I added background on the numbering system itself to show why the numbering system exists and why it is necessary.

in your comment, "NOTTEXTBOOK" you linked to the wikipage "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" Under the subheading: "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" number 6 states:

"... Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples...Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article."

I firmly believe that the information I presented were "Facts" and that they were not presented in a style to "teach subject matter". I did not have:

  1. leading questions
  2. systematic problem solutions as examples

I am confident that the information I added was within the spirit of Wikipedia.

It may have been pedantic, which is a negative way of saying I was precise and meticulous, but I don't see that being a pertinent problem in any of the Wikipedia style guides.

I admit that I am new to this, and open for a more detailed reasoning for the removed edits, as well as suggestions to improve my writing style, but the information is a needed addition to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmbirkhead (talkcontribs) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sources[edit]

Thanks for the reminder on the established policy to use secondary sources. I have a few questions though:

1) Can primary sources be used to establish priority?

The article on borylation for instance neglects to mention the work of Smith (1999) predating Hartwig (2000), and in my opinion, misleads readers regarding the history of the reaction. The primary source establishes priority unambiguously and without bias.

2) Is an out-of-print book/monograph reference preferable to a primary literature reference available online?

Seems to me that for the purposes of verification that the primary literature might actually be preferable.

3) What to do when no review is available?

Is the existence of a review required to establish notability? Reviews are often based on what's trendy, and in my opinion, not an indication of the importance of the topic. For instance, a review on the structural inorganic chemistry and applications of group 11 hydrides was only published last week, although that topic has been gaining in importance for many years now.

Thanks for the info,

Ymwang42 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ymwang42: These are all good questions, and there are no strict rules. But JACS, JOMC, and JOC, which you cited today, are definitely not WP:SECONDARY and should be avoided. Too specialized.
  • When it comes to precedence, primary citation is the best choice, I agree also.
  • I also cite primary for crystal structures, since that information for metal-containing compounds is so fundamental.

Thank you for asking and keep up the good work. Just stick to very general information. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Please note, however, that the one of the JOC papers I cited is a review by Negishi which covers his work in the alkyne functionalization area. It was meant to take the place of the JACS, JOMC, and the primary literature JOC paper. There is some nuance involved here, because this was clearly an invited review, and Negishi certainly injects some degree of opinion into this article. I prefer the original citations in JOMC and JACS based their higher level of neutrality, but changed to the JOC paper after your reminder on the preference for secondary sources.

It may be difficult to tell just based on the title whether a source is 1° or 2° and whether the 2° source is unbiased. An authoritative text like the Schlosser manual would obviously be the best in most situations. However, it would be a serious loss to Wikipedia if the information presented is limited to sources of this nature. [Wikipedia and its neutrality and quality is something I care deeply about. Unfortunately, some scientists and their coworkers use it as a platform for self-promotion. Thank you for the enormous amount of time you've spent contributing and doing quality control!]

Let me know what you think!


Ymwang42 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wang: So long as you are aware of the potential problems and issues, just go for it. We can correct each other based on our opinions and argue as colleagues. There is a continuing threat of people trying to promote their work by publicizing their articles. Few people realize that tens of thousands of journal articles are published each year, and many enthusiastic authors think that their stuff is really deserving of special attention (when it usually is not deserving of any attention in Wikipedia). Keep up the good work. We need chemists who know their stuff. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not know how to restore my edit. I would like you to restore the text. Suffice it to say, I believe the deletion of it is well-intentioned but completely wrongheaded. Let's discuss publicly on the talk page for organoaluminum chemistry. Ymwang42 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just stick to reviews. Dont worry about it. Wikipedia is not Chem Rev. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July[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) 00:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Government mandated iodization of salt does not bring out strong feelings."[edit]

You have this on your userpage; I'm afraid it does, especially in India. Just about every important element seemingly either has a controversy or a puffery problem, alas! Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Small question[edit]

Dear Smokefoot, I added a new paper on superconductor into further reading section. You removed it. I am new to wiki. Could you kindly explain it to me? Thanks a lot and have a good day Davy2016 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for possibly over reacting to your comment about TiO2. Wikipedia gets all sorts of folk wanting to give advice on toxicity and debunk this and that theory, that some of us can react reflexively. I am not a real expert on TiO2, I teach about it in a general way. Almost everything that I would contribute on this topic would come from standard textbooks. My favorite source FYI is Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, which has a large chapter on inorganic pigments (DOI 10.1002/14356007.n20_n01) including big sections on zinc sulfide, white zinc oxide, and TiO2. Ullmann's is available by subscription but maybe you can cut a deal for access at your local university. Ullmann's has only a short paragraph on use of titania in cosmetics, "lack of toxicity, compatibility with skin and mucous membranes, and good dispersibility". Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Aluminium chloride "undo some sort of drawing experiment"[edit]

Regarding your edit, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Consensus?. DMacks (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking for some help.[edit]

Thanks for reverting my edits on the page Calcium. Would you offer me some help that I can improve my citation?

Eddie123e 12:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie123e (talkcontribs)

Thanks for asking. My main advice: Pay attention to edit comments from experienced editors like Plantsurfer. Wikipedia, to its credit, does not view itself as a reliable source, so we seek good (WP:SECONDARY) references from books and reviews. So go look up the 41Ca situation in technical sources and cite these sources. Happy editing and best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice! Eddie123e 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie123e (talkcontribs)

Access to some sources[edit]

Hi, Smokefoot! I see that you are a chemist! I want to ask whether you can access the full text of the following sources Structure of electrolytic Solutions - 1959 edited by W. J. Hamer and E. Glueckauf, especially the page 97 and its surroundings, chapter authored by E. Glueckauf, regarding the derivation additional info concerning the formula mentioned on activity coefficient#Concentrated solutions of electrolytes. Also, can you access another source, also by Glueckauf Transactions of the Faraday Society which seems to be very similar to the content in 1959 book to compare the details of the derivation(s)? Thanks.-- (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Check The Chemistry of Iron, Cobalt and Nickel: Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, p. 1107, which can replace the cited Chinese book. It cites two original articles in German and French. But to be honest, they were published in 1960s, and I can't find further research papers after that, so the results may not be very reliable. By the way, those stubs written during my high school years do have many problems, and thanks for your efforts in improving them. --Makecat 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and best wishes in general. I seem to recall that early on you were a lively editor, and I hope that you continue to help out.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Thank you so much for your edits – they certainly remind me of how much I still have to learn about chemistry. (And also how I should probably not be quite so trusting of material present in older versions of the article, like the solubility-deficiency links.) I do hope the article is mainly fine, since I feel I have a great responsibility to get it right for the readers. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, thanks for reading my edits without getting upset or feeling threatened. We all know that edits and editing notes can seem unpleasant or mean spirited. The balance between encyclopedic tone and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is tricky. Good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for stopping me just now when I went a little too far into biological extrapolation – I really appreciate your work to keep this stuff right.
I'll be working up the rest of the halogen column on and off over the next few months, so if you have a few moments to spare on correcting me there too I'd be greatly thankful. I realise the section on organobromines in the Br article is currently hilariously inadequate – even I can see that there is no mention of what exactly Br2 does as a reagent or anything about NBS at all – so I'm not going to submit that for GAN just yet. (Still, I hope it is an improvement on the previous versions of the article.) Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Methylene and methylidene, etc[edit]

I don't think it's a matter of using "official nomenclature", it's a matter of communication and understanding. Methylene (-CH2-) and methylidene (CH2=) are two different things, and that particular compound has only one correct name, which is methylidenecyclopropane. If you are one of those people that want to contribute to make Wikipedia a low-level encyclopedia, go ahead. I'm tired of fighting with Wikipedia administrators that think they own the pages.Daniblanco (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, sorry that things aren't working out for you. We are mainly focused on communicating vs following rules. The hit ratio is 20:1 in Google for the two terms. In this particular molecule, there is not a lot of ambiguity about where to attach the CH2.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


you over-wrote my comment here... Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I must have been tired and not paying any attention. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for always being polite and helping to quickly resolve the disagreement we had. Much appreciated :) EvilxFish (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


I've read your email. I won't be able to act on it alone as all previous information available to make the connection is not around. Therefore a second person would have to look at it. Also, while you do cite articles, specific diffs will help assert your claim as right now it sits that I have to do a lot of digging through articles and contributions to make the connection. If someone does target you, there are ways of dealing with that. Because of that and you being involved with the user, i'll recommend that you make the filing public, and you can ping me when you do and have diffs available. Please let me know if you have further questions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Smokefoot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in this[edit]

[10]. Banedon (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello Smokefoot, why is that reaction premature ? -- Ktsquare (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Two comments - no one does this reaction (carbonation of methane), people talk about it, but it is not practiced. At least to my knowledge. Acetic acid is made industrially by carbonylation of MeOH and there are some old methods, including fermentation. In nature, CH4 participates in two reactions to my knowledge, neither of which involves CO2. Second, Wikipedia does not cite research proposals. I was very puzzled to see that source. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)