User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2

Nitriles are not all bad

As you suggested, I added a comment about nitriles in pharmaceutical drugs in the cyanide article. That was a good idea; if you have other suggestions, just let me know. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Copper Sulfate

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't write that, so I just skimmed it over, and didn't evem motice that. I was mesmorized by the picture ;) xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 11:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ferrocene

About the ferrocene drug, two papers do consider Fc and the Fc+ salts as cytotoxins. One was in chem comm in the last decade. If you want I can have a go at digging out the reference for you. Unless you have already done it I will add a comment to state that the drug is at an experimental stage only.

CASREF in tables

Hi Smokefoot,

Thanks for all coordinating all the work your students have done recently, helping us dispose of lots of stubs! I wanted to mention that I see you've been putting CASREF into tables. This seems like a good idea, but unfortunately many browsers (like Firefox) give printing problems when you do that. The external link is expanded to its full size and I find students coming in showing me Wikipedia printouts where the text is compressed to the left hand inch of the page! We have a strict policy of no external refs in tables for this reason, that's why the template doesn't include any. Thanks, Walkerma 02:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. Have you seen the problem for yourself, or does your browser print OK? If you can revert the changes without hours of work, it would be very good. If you can find a solution to the problem, it'd be even better! Thanks again, and keep up the good work. Walkerma 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

n-Butyllithium

I've replied to your message on my talk page. Cheers. --Ben 23:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC).

NaSH

Your recent edit to Sodium hydrosulfide was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Smokefoot, took a look at your recent articles, I see you're doing some great work, thank you very much! I enjoyed reading about thiophosgene, my old company in England used to make it (can't reveal how!). I think customers used it to make ROC(S)Cl type products, by reaction with alcohols, not sure what those are used for. I've also first hand experience of S2Cl2 on the plant, I can tell you it destroys rubber gloves in no time, it vulcanises them! I can smell it even now.

Enough reminiscing, the only article where I could see Tawkerbot2 reversion was sodium hydrosulfide, is this correct? I found it amusing that it reverted Smokefoot's version to Smokefoot's version! (Sorry if you're not laughing!) I have left a comment on the bot talk page, following up on yours, suggesting that if the edit is by the sole author of the page it should be ignored. I admit I couldn't tell why you were trying to blank most of the page, it certainly had the appearance of vandalism, but I would suggest that if you are doing a major rewrite then work offline and then upload it/copy it over. I prefer to do that with major rewrites I've done on things like alcohol and sulfuric acid because I didn't want someone else editing half way through my rewrite. Tawkerbot2 does catch a lot of legitimate vandalism, by the way, which does save us all a lot of time (alcohol used to get vandalised every Saturday night!). Keep up the good work! Walkerma 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to your mention of references, a couple of tips. I mention these because I only learned such subtleties after I had misused these headings hundreds of times!

• Wikipedia distinguishes between "References," which are supposed to be directly used for factual content in the article, and "Further reading," which is just relevant in a more general way. Just today I added two of the latter to olefin metathesis, these were two nice reviews by Grubbs I was using for teaching a class.
• Similarly, web refs are perfectly OK as source material for the article if they are from legitimate sources (e.g., C&E online, govt websites, etc), and should appear under references if used that way. "External links" is only used for non-source material, i.e., as the online equivalent of "further reading."
• As for a citation format, most chemistry articles use the "inline" format used in that olefin metathesis article, with {{Ref|Corey}} in the text and {{Note|Corey}} in the refs section, along with the ref. That gives a link from the text to the ref and back. However there is a newer format I came across in Antarctica recently (the article, I've never been south of Florida in my life!) - take a look at that, I think it's really neat. I may suggest we start using it in chemistry too.

Cheers, Walkerma 03:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Sorry about the slow reply, I was out of town for a couple days and wasn't really checking talk page messages. I'm still not 100% sure what happened (or maybe its just I'm really tired right now) so I'll take a look later. In any case, I've whitelisted you so it shouldn't touch any of your edits. Sorry about that -- Tawker 06:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

UO3 and A. Bond

Hi Smokefoot, I think that the Bond paper is important as it is an example of how metal ions can be added into the lattice of UO3. I am planning on adding more content to this section. Many people have done experiments where ions are added to uranium oxides but Alan's experiment is the most easy to perform. I think that references to the primary chemical literature are important as they allow an interested person to see the original work.

Alan Bond is a leading electrochemist (thought to be in Auz) and I think that some of his inventions such as the RAM electrode should get a page of their own.Cadmium

Dear Smokefoot, I am not biased in favour of chemists from Auz it is a simple accident of chance that I choose to mention Alan Bond and Tony Hill who are both in Auz. If you check the list of references I have made to the chemical lit then you will find some other places mentioned. I am only biased in favour of good chemists, no matter if they are english, french, german, male, female, black, white, gay, straight, normal, werid etc.... The so called mid level chemists are the people who are doing the most interesting research, anyway what do you mean by a A or B grade report ?

I think that the best encyclopedia of inorganic chemistry is Cotton and Wilkinson, this is a book which is littered with references to primary sources. This book describes the standard chemistry of an element, and then also comments on any interesting additional things.

I think that the subject of compounds formed by the reductive reaction of UO3 with metal ions is too small to get a page of its own. I think that the best thing is to have a small section within the UO3 page on this sub-topic. Anyway when compared with the UO3 gas, Alan's microparticles of UO3 should not be something to lose sleep over. The microparticle electrochemistry has already started to be reviewed in the chemical literature in monographs. See Gryar, Marken, Schroder and Scholz, Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun., 2002, 67, 163-208 for one review on the subject.Cadmium 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Two comments as you assess your ability to evaluate generality of impact - Collect of Czeck Chem might not indicate the level of importance qualifying for a 1-2 page overview of UO3. Second, Cotton and Wilkinson is a nice book for initiates, but there are others, as indicated above.

What is wrong with CCCC ? While it is an eastern europe journal, some of what is in it is very good. Have you read the review in CCCC ?Cadmium

not very often, about once a decade. There are many fine papers in Aust J Chem, Recueil, and Gazetta etc. In any case, congratulations and my salute for helping with your many reports (Ir read the one on the Cs137 disaster in Brazil, incredible), you and Ben-whatever are doing great things.--Smokefoot 20:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Manganate

The synthesis seams to be wrong. The reduction of the permanganate is done by? KOH would not do it!--Stone 08:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I will recheck, but almost certainly hydroxide is the reductant to give H2O2 or O2. Also - do the exp: add KOH to a testtube containing aq KMNO4, nifty to see. Recall that Mn is in the O2-evolving center in photosynthesis so water is indeed an reductant under certain circumstances. thank you for pointing out the absence of a balanced eq. and the need for more info.--Smokefoot 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC) The equations have been balanced. Non-inorganic chemists are often surprised at the redox properties of water, protons and hydroxide. Please let me know if you have similarly helpful suggestions for other articles listed on my user page. Thank you again.--Smokefoot 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The normal synthesis for manganates startes from the MnO2 with oxygen as oxidative and potassium hydroxide for stability. This reaction is described in Holleman Wieberg. --Stone 06:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Holleman and Wiberg is my bible also. The Inorganic Synthesis prep begins with KMnO4 and every paper that I have found does something similar, i.e. NaOH + KMnO4. Industrial vs. laboratory methods are often very different and both should be described.--Smokefoot 04:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Both methodes are in and this is good. Lab is water -78 to 200°C 1atm and cheap components and wast are irrelevant. Industry is cheap cheap cheap and no wast and no complicated purification please. I know Niels W. myself and is already retired, so the Holemann E. Wieberg N.Wieberg will get the next name on the list. But like always the son strugles to gain the reputation of the father and most of the time he is not sucessfull.--Stone 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Carbon tetraiodide

I added the appel reaction and now doubt that it will work the same way like with chlorine and bromine. Is there a literature for the conversion of alcohol to iodide by CI4? The other thing:

2CI₄ + H₂O → I₂ + 2CHI₃ + ??-O-??

The decomposition might take place but what is the second product?

It is an interesting conversion that baffles me too but any reaction that generates O2 or H2O2 is interesting to me. Here's a quote from Encycl Reagents in Org Syn "The proposed mechanism involves the reduction of CI4 with hydroxy anion with formation of radical anion (eq 10), which than gives triiodomethyl radical (eq 11). The latter abstracts hydrogen from alkane (eq 12), forming alkyl radical that carries the radical chain (eq 13).10, 12 Hence, this process is akin to the radical coupling mechanism proposed for the preparation of oxinolide dimers (vide supra)."

CI4 + OH- to OH(dot) + CI4- CI4- to I- + CI3(dot) --Smokefoot 18:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool reaction with a nice lot to write to make it clear. That is why I do not like iodine and radicals, they make reactions chemist always try to avoide!--~~

Coordination polymers

Hi smokefoot, could you do me a favour. Please could you add some content to the coordination polymers page. I feel that it is the case that you or one of your students could do a good job on it. I have put a little content at the page, but I am not sure how much more I should add. I want to be careful to avoid a too biased article, I think that by getting more than one author to work on it then a more NPOV article will be the end result.Cadmium 20:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Dear Cd: I put in some references, on the nicely poised article you wrote. You're right - that topic is huge and your explanation of non-chelating ligands is probably the way forward. Well done. I am swamped because my students wiki-projects are coming on line now, so have fun but I wont be able to play much...--Smokefoot 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Titanium tetrachloride

Do you have a source for the tickle-4 claim?Geni 14:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it writen down anywhere?Geni 14:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

C2O and carbon suboxide

Both changed a little since your note at the talk page! Have a look and read the english, sometimes I need help with it!--Stone 19:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Electron counting

I'll move away for a moment, I will create the 18-electron rule - page, but not put the information in there, I am now interfering too much with your edits.. --Dirk Beetstra 19:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Manganate

In response to

Hi I saw that you deleted my data tabel on K2MnO4 from the Manganate report. Rather than discarding the data, it is probably preferrable to create an article on K2MnO4 and then divvy up the content. It just seems a shame to discard the info. Comments please?--Smokefoot 02:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. You can go ahead and create it if you'd like (just get back the table from the page history). I was planning on commenting out the table, but it wouldn't comment out normally because of comments in the table itself, so I had to delete it. —Mets501^talk 02:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem! —Mets501^talk 02:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Content 18 VE rule

Dear Smokefoot, could you have a look at Talk:18-Electron rule, Brichcja and I seem to get into a content-dispute. IMHO, 18 electron rule should talk about the fact that the metal in TM-compounds have room for 18 electrons, and that compounds deviating from that show, in general, more reactivity. Brichcja is convinced that 18 VE principly only applies to organometallic compounds (I fail to see the difference between organometallics and inorganics, from the metal point of view). I have stopped editing that page for now (I spend some time on the talk page, but will wait for some other opinions now), though I am not happy with a lot of the things that are now written on it. I will also ask Martin Walker for an opinion. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra 17:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pffff

Dear Smokefoot, You asked a question about aluminium chloride, which could point to aluminium(III) chloride as well as aluminium(I) chloride. I was now going through some pages on the chemicals by element lists, bravely starting with scandium (easy, only one), but now I found that for titanium the system is completely lost, as a simple example, we have titanium(II) chloride, titanium(III) chloride, but titanium tetrachloride (with a redirect from titanium(IV) chloride) I created the disambiguation'titanium chloride, pointing to the three chlorides, but am now a bit in dubio. What to do with that problem, go through them, and move all to 'metal(#) anionide' (and deal with redirects later? Is going to be a **** of a job)? I'd prefer that name. --Dirk Beetstra 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Osmium(VIIII) oxide

I agree that there is no such chemical compound; oxidation number 9 doesn't exist. I have just properly moved the article to Osmium(VIII) oxide and deleted the former location; a copy-and-paste move destroys the page's history. Regards, Mike Rosoft 17:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• To move an article with all its history, you can use a link "move" above the article. Sometimes this is not possible due to the target page being blocked; in that case only an administrator can do the move. For details, see Help:Moving a page. For the other question, I don't know of a way to list only the redirects to a page (which would have been quite useful); you can use a "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left, which lists all linking pages with redirects being marked as such. - Mike Rosoft 08:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

ligand table

Dear Smokefoot, I saw your edits on the tables in ligand, I think the page is leaping forward at the moment. Now I must confess, that I guessed that the binding atom for nitrite was the oxygen, forgot indeed that the binding atom can also be the N .. but .. the table is sorted on field-strength, it does matter which atom binds .. so I do object against mentioning both in the first line of the table .. I know the field strenght of cyanide is based on binding through the C, and that the N can make a bridge to another atom (see Prussian blue), and for SCN it does make a difference in field-strength if binding is through S or N .. we may have to check this .. you have an Shriver, Atkins at hand? --Dirk Beetstra 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

---

Well, I am only applying a bullshit-filter to the pages, and try to get back to basics. But it is nice to hear my edits are appreciated, and I happy at least someone is having a critical look at the things I change, and (hopefully) applies his bullshit-filter to it. Your additions surely make me think, and well, I do make mistakes (just an average monkey) ... But OK, in the table on field strength, the binding atom should be correct, so not either O or N for NO2, but each an own entry, and if we don't know, the 'other' one should be in the other table. I don't think we will manage to combine the two tables, still, there are many that could have a reasonable place in the upper table (I guess that for [η5-C5H5]- it should be known where it is on the spectrochemical series, I don't expect that for combined ligands). The upper table should give a good feeling what makes a ligand weak or strong, and how to 'tweak' its hardness a bit. For the latter I am thinking examples like NH3, NMe3 and NEt3 in there, just to show the effect of alkyls, same goes for PPh3, P(OPh)3, P(OEt)3, PMe3, PEt3 ..

I do agree on CN, I can't think of complexes with isolated 'M-NC' fragments .. exception is 'M-NC-M' (I thought it was Prussian Blue, have to look it up, a friend of mine is working on the stuff and did have crystal structures), so it might be worth stating how it is bridging (CO can bridge between metals, where both metals are bound through C, for CN- that mode also exists, but for that also the 'M-CN-M' mode). Again, thanks for the critical notes, see you around! --Dirk Beetstra 07:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Organic compounds

Definition of "organic" is not as simple as you want to make it. If you look for definitions of this on the web you can find everything from "compound of carbon" (period) to "compounds of carbon except certain salts" to your own favorite one of C-H compounds. There is no agreement. Personally, I think Teflon and Freon have much in common with standard hydrophobic organics and should be considered members of the class in good standing, H or not.Steve 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyanide

I added two links to literature for fruits.--Stone 08:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sodium thiosulfate

Hi Smoke,

I fully agree with your comments on the structure of the thiosulfate ion in sodium thiosulfate. I must have been tired or something when I drew the original image. For the meantime, I've uploaded a 3D vdW image for the article. I can draw another 2D structure with your guidance. How would you show it? Like this, this or this?

Thanks again for clearing up after me!

Ben 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

Hi again,

I've uploaded an image with one-third charges on each oxygen. Hope this is what you had in mind.

Best wishes

Ben 17:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

Octahedral molecular geometry

Hi there. I noticed you recently did some copy edit to this page, mainly to my work. This is fine by me - it's the basis of this whole thing I know! - and I thought it did improve the page. However, somebody immediately reverted the page. Any ideas why? Do you want to revert back?--Chris 19:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Inorganic Chemistry

Hi Smokefoot, I had a look at Inorganic Chemistry. Nice job, I think most of the information is now there, it gives a nice overview, thanks! I will go through the article in the next days, and expand some paragraphs, maybe rewrite one or two, and think about the order of the paragraphs. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Metallocenes

Is uranocene a metallocene? I was under the impression that it was, but the article metallocene seems to be a bit too restrictive in the definition. Would you mind having a look when you get a chance? --HappyCamper 01:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kubas

This edit: [1] - You had the reference handy all along? :-) --HappyCamper 04:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC) "Yes I put it into Hydrogen to show the use of the word "dihydrogen". --Smokefoot 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

HappyApple contact

Hello, thank you for leaving me a note on my disussion page. I think your edits on my contributions are a little bit off the road. About moving the ferrocene reference history and hapticity to sandwich compounds is just fine.

But moving the historical background of the origin of hapticity to Zeise's salt i think is not a good idea, because what i wrote it was intended to show the readers how the term was originated, and to just cut and paste it on Zeise's salt, exhibits some repetitive contents such as the preparation of the salt. I think it would be a good idea to restore this and perhaps rewrite a short introduction of how finally the term was coined.

This is my proposal

==History==

1. Seize's salt the first organometallic compound to be made and the origin of organometallic nomenclature, thus hapticity.
2. Ferrocene's structure confirmation and use of "hapticity" as the name for newer sandwich compounds to come.

I hope this, to be the structure, that could be used in Hapticity article, because it really lacks of any historical background, in any case, i would be happy to know what are your impressions about my proposal.--HappyApple 05:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hapticity

Hi Smokefoot,

I will have a look, looks pretty bad at the moment, indeed, history is a bit .. broad, and it lacks an intro, and there are some other things that I think are not correct .. e.g. the difference between hapticity and denticity .. Pff .. just back from Zaragoza (hot, dry, hardly any sleep), and immediately difficult tasks at hand ;-). See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Well, it is still not OK, but getting better. I must have a look into the IUPAC-document, you might be right, but I would describe a coordinated TMEDA with 'η²,κ¹(N),κ¹(N')-N,N,N',N'-tetramethylethylenediamine' (not sure about exact kappa's notation. But maybe needs someone with extended IUPAC-nomenclature knowledge (that η, κ, and μ is used wrong in many cases). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, rewrote paragraph, added a reference (now the rest ..)! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the examples, adding some, but I need some help finding some illustrative examples, preferably where the compound is already described in wikipedia (I am thinking especially about a ruthenium-dihydrogen compound, and some compounds with a bridging, side-on dinitrogen, dioxygen, ethene, acetylene). The more complicated examples are less important, they do not need a reference inside Wikipedia, but also there some nice examples would be nice. You know any? Cheers --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Safety @ chlorine

Hi Smokefoot. I saw we came to hydrogen sulfide almost at the same moment. Indeed there are many pages that get massive savety parts in them. I now saw chlorine, there is also a precautions section there which may be cut down .. but the article is stated 'A class' .. I feel like a bigger copy-edit (I would not call WW-I one of the major 'applications and uses' of chlorine gas ...). Any suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm .. this is fun. There are many pages having miles of safety instructions. I axe them down when I encounter them. I hope I don't step on long toes, now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen peroxide

Hi Smokefoot. This morning I edited hydrogen peroxide, I drastically minimized the safety data, but it appears that user:Wolfkeeper disagrees with that. He believes that safety data should be in the Wikipedia. I have tried to explain why we remove these sections (on his talk page), but he disagrees, and has also added a rather strong remark onto my talk page.

Now I do confess that there was more in the hazards-section, but IMHO that should not have been there, and was not referenced, anyway (and partially impossible). I have reinserted these parts in the article again in other places.

I hope that Wolfkeeper and I can find a way around this. But could you have a look at it all? Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WMe6

Hi Smokefoot, have completed a fairly brief literature survey of the literature behind the distortion in the structure of WMe6. i now see the cause of the distortion is far less clear than i thought (and was told), so i will revert my earlier edit to agostic interaction. by the way, is W(CO)3(PCy3)2(H2) a valid example? i came across it in my travels. Xcomradex 11:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

oh nevermind, i see a very related complex is already listed. Xcomradex 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SO₃

I was unaware that the alpha and beta forms of SO₃ were due to water molecules at the ends of the polymer chains. I had thought that the difference between the alpha and beta polymer was simply a difference in cross-linking. Still I would not regard the water-terminated polymer as something other than SO₃ -- just as you would not regard coke or soot as anything other than carbon, although it actually consists significantly of nano-flakes of graphite with various non-carbon groups populating the molecular edges. Karlhahn 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Speak for yourself, if the material has the empirical formula C and only C, then it is carbon. SO3 has the empirical formula SO3, not plus a little extra something thrown in. But indeed you make a good point - the internal monomers of polymer chains do indeed serve as a source of SO3 so I agree with you there. But coke or soot as carbon? I dont know enough but my guess is that soot especially is terminated with lots of phenolic functionality, like glassy carbon. Composition is composition. Hence Beestra's railing against some articles discussing "pure" compounds - what else is their to discuss? Purity is the default. But then, I'm a purist.--Smokefoot 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But what, in real life, is pure? Getting back to the carbon, a diamond lattice is terminated at its surface typically by hydrogens, which is why, at its surface it behaves like an aliphatic hydrocarbon (e.g., paraffins aggressively stick to its surface). So is it carbon? I guess I've jumped into an ongoing argument here. BTW by the strict definition of crystal, is a diamond a crystal or a molecule? That is, is it using the term loosely to apply it to something whose packing is coordinated by covalent bonds rather than electrostatic forces, vdW forces or hydrogen bonding? And if something packs in one or two dimensions (e.g. asbestos or mica) instead of three, does it get to be called a crystal? Karlhahn 05:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Provocative comments indeed, gets to the heart of our definitions of a chemical compound, an article I have not yet looked at. To me, if the "other component" (e.g. water in β-SO₃) is required for the structure, that's a issue that needs to be mentioned in the description of the material. You raise an excellent points. We teach and talk about the interiors of crystals but we know less about their exteriors often and assume that they are prisitine. Now remind me of what packs in one or two-dimensions? α-PtCl₂ and MoS₂ and graphite? The van der Waals interactions are important too. See you around and thanks for keeping me "honest"!--Smokefoot 16:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

google toolbar?

I noticed your edits to Carborane. Your issue may be an old version of the Google Toolbar, which can cause wierd cutoffs. Beyond that, strange extensions in firefox (and strange activex controls and toolbars in IE) could cause strangeness with editing. Kevin_b_er 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure if your comment ment this, but don't cut and paste stuff onto wikipedia from technical sources. Everything you write must fit under the GFDL, which permits modification & redistribution of the text, provided its under the GFDL as well. Kevin_b_er 02:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, great. Was worried you were cutting and pasting analysis or something. Such a thing would be plagarism. But all the stuff you mentioned is public stuff. Numbers which are identification numbers(like CAS #s) or intrinsic numbers (like atomic weight) aren't plagarizable for the most part and are chunks of public factual knoledge. Kevin_b_er 03:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are missing any shred of civility

Must be nice to know it all. (unsigned from User:Timmy12)

Re: Covellite is...?

...yes, CuS, of course. The terms "monosulfide" and "disulfide" shall not refer to the Cu:S ratio but only to whether there are S₁ or S₂ units. I've now changed the term "Copper monosulfides" which might be misunderstood as "Monocopper monosulfides" into less confusing "Monosulfides".--Pcbn 12:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethylene

Hi Smokefoot! I saw your edit to ethylene, nice work .. but .. solubility 25 mL / 100 mL .. that is totally unbelievable to me. Having a strong background in olefin polymerisation/trimerisation, I know that there is an article of some guys, who made a cationic nickel-alkyl complex, which is capable of polymerising ethylene (don't have the ref here, sorry), that nickel-compound does it's job quite well, ánd it is soluble in water. They were able to show that it was stable in water, and that, in water, it was even an active polymerisation catalyst .. with a turnover of about 1 ethylene per day or so .. why? Not because it was a lousy catalyst, but since it chances of encountering a molecule of ethylene in water were too low .. ethylene does hardly dissolve in water .. could I see your ref for the solubility, please? See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Conductive polymers

1) Historically, the linear-chain polymer "blacks" are called melanins. Some fungal melanins are even pure polyacetylene.

2) If this is a "vanity" article, is it for Weiss's group. In 1963, they reported [2] a conductivity as low as 1 S/cm in oxidized, iodine-doped polypyrrole (verses the prize-winners oxidized, iodine-doped polyacetylene). McGinness was merely the last (and most visible, with papers in Science and and a news article in Nature) person to show high conductivity in this class of organic polymers before the Nobel winners grabbed the credit. And this was only incidental.

4) Please discuss such changes on the discussion page first. Pproctor 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Diamondoids

hey Smokefoot! I just saw your entry on the diamondoids page. Sorry, but I have to say in my opinion you were wrong about adding the Be-oxide-thing there. Diamondoids are hydrocarbons. You might replace a single atom by another and they can probably still be considered diamondoids but the one you added does not belong there, I am pretty sure... Do you mind taking it off again? Laslandes 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful note on Be acetate. Before you deleter, I ask to wait for additional users to look it over, say for a few days. Or put your recommendation on the Talk:Diamondoid. My own sense is that "diamondoid" refers to connectivity (crystal symmetry), not composition. User:V8rik is expert that I expect will comment. My real concern is whether the connectivity is ok. If the connectivity is diamondoid, then we could always insert a section on diamondoid pointing out the Si, heteroatomics (carbosilanes), and other non-C things have similar shapes. By the way, keep up the good editing. --Smokefoot 01:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

special:chemicalsources

Hi! I just decided to spam some people directly, who I know are very active on chemicals. There is now a wiki running on http://chemistry.poolspares.com (a site created by Nickj from the wikimedia IRC channel, the site will be taken offline again in a couple of weeks), where I have now hosted a small wikipedia. It runs two extensions I have written to the wikipedia software, a special page (for chemical sources, see also wikipedia:chemical sources and a chemform tag (for easy input of chemical formulae). Could you have a look, and comment on it (if useful I would like to try to let Tim or Brion enable it on wikipedia, though I feel some resistance there). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak?

Hi Smokefoot, are you going on wikibreak for a while? I hope you're not leaving us altogether - your contributions have been very valuable, and I for one appreciate you helping to keep some momentum going in chemistry topics. If you do leave us, thanks for what you have done. If you're just taking a break, then I hope you can find the right level of balance so you can enjoy working here. It's been a pleasure working with you. Walkerma 07:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Denticity and Hapticity

Hmmm. Look at these two definitions from the Ligand article:
Denticity (symbol κ) is the property of a ligand defining the number of coordination sites to which it binds.
The number of atoms with which a polydentate ligand bind to the metal centre is called its denticity (symbol κ).
How could they be both true? And what on earth is hapticity then? Quadro 06:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Awarded for the creation of numerous thorough and useful chemical articles and valuable contributions to many existing chemistry articles.--Ed (Edgar181) 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hydroformylation

I have just added a lot more content at the hydroformylation page, you might want to read thorugh it. I saw a remark that you made that a lot is done with Rh rather than Co. I know that Co is the first metal to be used for the reaction but a lot has been done with Rh in more recent times. I think that the mechanisms are almost identical for Co and Rh so I have given the Co based cycles. What do you think of this topic ?Cadmium

Thanks for you comments and edits, the ethyleneoxide and formaldehyde work is noteworthy. My main concern, as before, is that the references be general reviews or landmark (discovery or practical) papers: the emphasis should be on breadth rather than specific references. It seems unlikely that Rh-PP3 anions are involved, but I have not read those. You can also see the high artistic standards set by user:V8rik in his equations at the bottom of the article.--Smokefoot 16:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks it seems like you are happy with what I have written, I am sure that the anionic Rh complexes are involved as Heck showed in one paper that (CH2)3O reacts with Co(CO)4- to make a complex which then did much of the same chemistry as the hydroformylation. I hope to add that reference soon. Sadly I can not draw the same nice things as V8rik, but he is free to redraw my diagrams with some other tool. Have you considered changing to the Citizendium wiki ?Cadmium

ACS National Meeting in Chicago

Hi, will you be at the Chicago meeting in March? I've been asked to talk to the Chemical Education division about using wikis in teaching chemistry. I'm submitting my abstract today (the deadline is today!), but if you're going to be there I'd love to have you co-present with me. Your email here isn't activated so I hope this message reaches you in time, so I can include your name on the abstract if you are available! Even if you can't go, I'd love to interview you on your experiences. Please let me know, here or on my talk page (or by email). Thanks, Walkerma 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cinnabar

I put some references on the talk pages of Cinnabar. I had no access to all of them, but what they state cinnabar toxic and due to the Metallothionein it is available in small amouts when cinnabr is eaten. One experiment staes that 5 g/kg (bw) for 4 weeks had given to mice, a awful lot, but the mice accumulated Hg in they kidneys and liver, but survived the 4 weeks. So cinabar is adding to the mercury already in your body, but as resorption is slow it leaves you on a natural way befor you can absorb it all. But it releases toxic mercury salts or complexes. It is hard to point this out in the article. The chinese medicine is also a point in one of the article. --Stone 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad is the wrong word for it. 2.8 g/kg of suggar kill a rat and 5 g/kg (bw) HgS (what ever bw means) do not kill a mouse! So the insolubility is benefiting, similar to Bariumsulfate. --Stone 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Overzealous?

I think you owe me an apology. All I was doing was fix to 1 of the 121 incorrect links to the disambiguation page chirality, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. I did not set up the two wiki links in the same paragraph. WVhybrid 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont be offended, I have been impetuous at times too and will be again. Here is what I thought I was undoing:

"... by chiral phosphines (e.g. Chiraphos, DIPAMP, DIOP), the catalyst becomes chiral and is..." "... by chiral phosphines (e.g. Chiraphos, DIPAMP, DIOP), the catalyst becomes chiral and is..."

So, sorry for making your work a little less pleasant. WE relies of the gnome-work like you were doing.--Smokefoot 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Germane and Germanium Compounds

I saw your edits and I do agree with your views. This is a short note to appreciate your advice. I did not know how to contact you (as being new to Wikipedia). Hopefully you will receive this message. Thanks and Best Regards, -DS, 22Nov 2006.

Chemical bonds

Thanks for the note of encouragement. It does need work, but one is alway afraid of stepping on turf. Not too many old edit wars here, tho, so I'll try a few explanatory changes, one at a time, and see what provokes. SBHarris 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Allene

Hi Smokefoot. Thanks for your picture on allene. I was wondering if you would upload it over the existing picture, so that 1. other projects can use it (it will be automatically updated), and 2., there are fewer redundant chemical diagrams floating around. I can do it, but I want to make sure it's okay with you first. --Rifleman 82 09:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You first have to create an account at commons.wikimedia.org. You'll be able to upload images immediately, but can only upload images over an existing old image after 4 days. The interface is exactly like that for en.wikipedia.org.

Perhaps in future, you can upload images you create directly there, instead of on en only. To display the image, you can use [[Image:Imagename.png]] as though it were on the local wikipedia itself. Before you do, you might wish to look around if an existing image is adequate for your purpose.

After copying an image to commons, you can add the {{nowcommons}} or {{nowcommonsthis}} to the en description page. Once all the links to the en file have been changed over to the commons file, it can be deleted by admins. --Rifleman 82 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Smokefoot. No worries about finding back on en. Just *pretend it were actually on en*. Take a look at the last revision of allene by me. Look at the syntax of the image file, and open the image file page. I'll be happy to move the image if you wish. But I was thinking that you might want to try it out for yourself? If you want me to do it, just let me know. --Rifleman 82 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

cite journal

May be you are right, but the FA mostly use this rference style and implementation of doi and pdf is simple. The Wikipedia:Citation_templates gives you a lot of possibilities!

  cite journal
 | last =
 | first =
 | authorlink =
 | coauthors =
 | title =
 | journal =
 | volume =
 | issue =
 | pages =
 | publisher =
 | date =
 | url =
 | doi =
 | id =
 | accessdate =  

Till tomorrow, the shops are closing in 26 minutes and so I have to leave.--Stone 18:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I like your work and the way you contribute to wikipedia!--Stone 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Hydrodesulfurization, Hydrotreater and Oil desulfurization

I am far enough along on the merger to invite everyone to read the draft and to make or offer edits. Please note:

• There is no "See also" section because every pertinent Wiki article I could think of is linked in the text of the draft article.
• The "Miscellaneous uses" sub-section needs some additional uses of hydrogenation ... but please try to brief them down to just a few sentences each, if possible. Also provide references, please.
• The Categories will be assigned after the draft is completely ready ... so don't worry about them now.
• The article still needs an extensive section on the catalysts used in hydrogenation and I will work on that tomorrow.
• As was agreed, the title will be "Hydrodesulfurization". The existing Hydrotreater and Oil desulfurization will be redirected to the merged article. The Hydrogenation article will remain as a stand-alone article.

The draft is in my sandbox at User:Mbeychok/MRB's sandbox and it has a Discussion page as well. Regards, - mbeychok 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Chlorine Pentafluoride

Hi! Why have you removed my rendering of this molecule? Was it lacking in detail or wrong in any way? If so, a more appropriate conduct would have been to present some constructive criticism in the article's or image's talk page, so that I could be given the chance to change the image according to your suggestions. Looking forward to hear from you. manu3d 03:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. No prob. manu3d 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Releasing the merged Hydrodesulfurization article.

I have added a brief history of the HDS system specifically, as you suggested. I also added/expanded a section on "Sulfur compounds in refinery HDS feedstocks". I then added a new section heading of "Catalysts and mechanisms", which is currently empty of any content. I am now going to release the article into the main namespace. Would you be willing to tackle that "Catalysts and mechanisms" section? Best regards, - mbeychok 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Smokefoot, thanks very much for the absolutely superb job you did on the "Catalysts and mechanisms" section. Just one point ... I think I will change the word "cartoon" to "diagram" for the image that you included. Once again, thanks. - mbeychok 18:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

hydrogen fluoride

Hi, I saw your revert. I was very tempted to leave the new text, but to add {{cn}} to every single sentence. Maybe that is a solution for now, insert the text, put the template on it, and wait for a week? No references -> revert! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that there are two different HF bond lengths in *liquid* HF? I don't have any personal experience about the issue, but a teacher (who is a professional research chemist specialising on inorganic reaction mechanism) told us that in HF the bonds along a chain are not alternating polar covalent and hydrogen but are infact equivalent. Loom91 07:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message

If you meant the last change, I have reverted all those edits (I saw them this morning .. and was at that moment a bit in doubt if I should revert), I'd like some more information why these edits were deleted. I tried to email you about the issue, but your email seems not to be enabled, could you email me, or should we discuss here (or on my talkpage?), cheers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to a.o. nickelocene, germane &c

I have had a long conversation with user Smokeyfuss who removed references without proper explanation from germane, nickelocene, iridium(III) chloride, cyclopentadiene and S.O. Lawesson. His first explanation was that the edits were all NPOV, added by one editor. I have done some research on the references in question, and I found that not one, but six editors are involved in the addition of the references (even more if one considers further edits on the documents). I have presented him the proof, and I asked for proof otherwise. But he agreed with my observations, and has agreed to help improve the wikipedia.

Coincidental or not, his username has a strong resemblance to yours. I have asked him to change his username, to prevent all confusion. I would suggest that, if he does not change his username soon, to ask for a block on the username (though, when there are no edits from his account anymore, there will be no confusion whatsoever). I will leave that decision to you.

Hope this has settled the situation. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please write Catalysts and Mechanisms section of new, merged, expanded Catalytic reforming article

Smokefoot, you did such a very good job of writing the Catalysts and Mechanisms section of the Hydrodesulfurization article that I want to ask you to please do the same for the new, merged, and expanded article I just finished on Catalytic reforming. Would you? Let me know as soon as convenient. Meanwhile, Happy Holidays! Regards, - mbeychok 07:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Smokefoot, I am sorry that you can't help. If you change your mind, please just join in. I'll try to find something for that section, but is not an area in which I have any great knowledge. I'm glad to hear that you liked the expanded Catalytic reforming article. Best regards, - mbeychok 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Smokefoot, I would like to email you but your Wiki email is not enabled. My email is mbeychok@cox.net ... would you please send me your email? Thanks, - mbeychok 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work

I've been noticing your work for a few days now. You do some good copyedit, keeping it simple. Keep it up! frummer 01:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Symclosene and dichlor

Hi there. I see you've just been expanding these articles, and I'd appreciate your input on their naming. When redirecting "trichlor" to symclosene I struggled with trichlor/symclosene/trichloroisocyanuric acid (i.e. which would be most appropriate), and decided on symclosene simply because it was already an existing article and a more complete one than trichlor. Again, any input would be appreciated; I think consistency in naming should be a priority for such closely related compounds. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Disclaimer: I haven't done any major edits to these articles, I'm merely responsible for the structures. Thanks again. Fvasconcellos

Thanks for the advice and compliments. *chloroisocyanuric acid seems to be the most commonly used name for these, so I'll leave messages on respective Talk pages and wait to see what comes up. I wish I hadn't just redirected dichloroisocyanuric acid to dichlor... :( Fvasconcellos 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

LFT

Good job (You also seem to be good at putting in references!). I corrected a couple of typos, and then modified the High and low-spin section and added a bit on the Spectrochemical series - see my comments on the LFT talk page. The high-spin - low-spin section on the CFT page is quite good, and I would be tempted to move that to LFT. Any thoughts?

I think we need an MO diagram to illustrate the pi-interactions for donor and acceptor ligands, but I'm not up to doing it!

Chris 22:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

MO diagrams

Hi Smokefoot - check out Wikipedia:Help_desk#Picture_doesn.27t_show_up - there's Image:CH4mo2.PNG for use now. --HappyCamper 18:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad you caught that free radical error. (Sorry about that). Peace, delldot | talk 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

clear, colourless

Hi Smokefoot, I'm baffled why you're removing the word "clear" from descriptions of compounds such as toluene. Are you assuming that people know the compounds are transparent? I often penalise my students if they exclude such information from their observations!! Cheers, Walkerma 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a gentleman! Walkerma 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I added to the discussion on Martins talk page. I'm confused now .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Random Smiley

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward2Jerry lavoie 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perrhenic acid

Hi Smoke, nice work on perrhenic acid.

I would like to make a 3D model of the molecule, and was wondering if the structure is exactly as you have drawn it, i.e. linearly coordinated oxygen between the two rhenium atoms.

Is the Re-O-Re angle actually ≈ 180° or is it drawn like this for neatness?

I can't check the reference myself as I'm not at university at the moment.

Cheers Ben 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Disodium aurothiomalate

Damn "organometallics". Thank you so much for the improvement—I guess I need to start doing some more reading before hitting the "drawing board". Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me, if you know?

I unsucessfully searched on Google whether there are any restrictions in import-export of Triethylamine? I have heard there are restrictions, also, I heard that it's freely exported from China. If you know, will you pl. advise me?swadhyayee 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

S4N4

Hi Smokefoot, I have decided to retrun to wikipedia after some time away. I think that you and I do not quite see things the same way when we are considering references. I think that we should add more references to the primary literature as if a reader is interested then they can go to the paper we cite and then use this as a starting point for their own literature search.

I know that review articles are useful, but a problem exists. We have to wait for someone to write and publish one of these (secondary) sources. For some areas it is unlikely that a review will be published in the near future so I think that we should cite the primary literature in wikipedia.Cadmium

There are lots of reviews on S4N4 and books as well. If you want to help WE's readers, then pull information from sources of a general nature and explain it. Otherwise you are demonstrating what - that specialized literature exists? I think we know that. There are probably 1000 papers on S4N4, where does one draw the line? But I cannot complain too much, your actions are perfectly permissible.--Smokefoot 13:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alkoxide drawing

The drawing isn't meant to represent an alkoxide in solution. It only depicts the structure of the functional group in a similar fashion to drawings at Ketone, Aldehyde, etc. If you have any other concerns, give me a shout back. shoy 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Silver azide

It is quite correct to say may when referring to the formation of siver azide in Tollens' Reagent. Some times this reagent was allowed to stand on the shelf and proved perfectly stable, other bottles would form the azide and explode. The same applies to sodium amide, old samples can detonate unpredictably, other bottles will be fine.

Socksysquirrel 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Silver azide

Do you think we could remove stub status from this article? It covers preparation, structure and properties fairly well.

Socksysquirrel 23:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ferrocene

Dear Smokefoot, I have just added a lot of content to the ferrocene page. Please be so kind as to read the page to see how it is now. I have added what I would describe as both organic and inorganic chemistry of ferrocene. I have added some details about some of the things which are closely related to ferrocene (such as a the ferrocene version of pyridine) and I have added some content to the reactions. I have put in two diagrams showing how ferrocene can be converted to other compounds.Cadmium

Editing

I have carried out small edits on a variety of pages; Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, Styphnic acid, Sodium thiosulphate, Electrophilic aromatic substitution and Mercury fulminate for example.

I hope you approve :-)

Socksysquirrel 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

aluminium boride

i have been looking at this article because its a stub and I was confused by the content. On investigation it seems there are two compounds both commonly called aluminium boride, ALB₂ and AlB₁₂. The latter is very hard. The article we have says Aluminium boride is AlB₂ but ascribes it the properties of AlB₁₂. There are also, (sadly) many other Al/B phases known but with very little info available on the web. What I thought would be the best would be to make one article about aluminium boride mentioning both AlB₂ and AlB₁₂, with an initial quick change to the existing article to remove confusion, followed after some legwork with a rewrite. Any thoughts? And yes I will add dois and article titles to references! Cheers 86.146.170.179 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry didn't realise I had been logged offAxiosaurus 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Imidazolidine image

Hi Smoke,

I saw your image Image:ImChem.png at imidazolidine just now. I think the structure of imidazoline has a mistake in it - compare it with the skeletal formula at imidazoline. The nitrogen on the left has four bonds to it, yet is not cationic.

Maybe I've misunderstood something fundamental, though.

Have a butcher's, see what you think.

Cheers

Ben 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lindlar

I wrote an answer here. --hroest 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Organic Syntheses

Hi Smokefoot

THink you might have an interest in this journal, especially as a reference source. Perhaps you would like to pop by Template_talk:Cite_journal#Organic_Syntheses to give a few comments? --Rifleman 82 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Otto Fischer

I found the references for him being involved into the Ferrocene story! Please have a look, my english is not encyclopedic enough all the time. Thanks --Stone 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BasicZnacetate.png

Can you move this structure to the Commons so that it can be used in the Italian and the German article? Thanks. --Leyo 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On break

I will be out of contact for a couple of weeks.--Smokefoot 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Barium ferrite

Thank you. 24.4.253.249 12:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Lipid peroxidation

Thanks for catching that mistake, could you check the new version of the figure and see if I've got anything else wrong? Thanks! Tim Vickers 23:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Version 3 figure on talk page. Tim Vickers 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-stoichiometric compound

Could you please expand on the idea "As the reduced molybdenum oxides illustrate."? I'm not that familiar with those compounds, but as it is now, the sentence looks a bit cryptic. --Itub 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for noticing that (and for not complaining about my sloppiness). I supplied an example of stoichiometric cmpds that have big formulas. The topic is a pretty important one but as all sorts of technology depends on it, ion conductors for example and oxidation catalysts. --Smokefoot 13:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Giant planet clouds

Hi Smokefoot, although I initially got the information from some "planetary data sheets" like this which just give raw percentages (and a subtly erroneous chemical name to boot), your query spurred me on to track down something which deals with this in more detail. Have a look at this Britannica article on Jupiter clouds (and in particular NH₄SH): http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-54256/Jupiter. It's great to get some overlap with serious editors in other fields once in a while :) Keep up the good work too. Deuar 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alq3.png

Hi Smokefoot. I just happened to notice that Image:Alq3.png seems to be missing a subscript 3. It should be a quick fix. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you, now repaired - some sort of paste problem because the 3 was in the png but got lost in the uploading to Wikicommons. --Smokefoot 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry viewpoint?

Hi again, I've got the article Oxidative phosphorylation up as a featured article candidate at the moment, any chance you could look it over and check the chemistry? Any other comments or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation would also be very welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Smokefoot

Where did the idea for the name Smokefoot come from?

I have always wondered!

Ben 19:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Oh that, it's just easy to remember.--Smokefoot 05:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

thank you for your note —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shjacks45 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Harber-Weiss reaction

The article abstract gives a different equation and states that the Fenton mechanism is more likely and therfore I am not sure if this article should be changed.--Stone 09:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, then revert my edit. I was unfamiliar with the reaction, but aimed to balance the equation. Sorry. --Smokefoot 12:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In contrary! The equation now looks better, but the reaction itself seems to be different to that in literature. I will try to finde the right one!--Stone 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cp₂Mo₂(CO)₆

Thank you, Smokefoot—as I said, I didn't have a reliable source for the structure, so I didn't intend to post it in the article until I got hold of something conclusive. I'll probably hold off on creating another one, but thank you again for finally saying what I expected :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfounded accusation of vandalism

If I place a chemical subject page, in a chemical subject category that you consider erroneous, that does not constitute vandalism, it constitutes a difference of opinion. If I was to place a chem subject page in the category American television actors, then that would be vandalism. If I was to place a subject page persistently in a category that other Wikipedia users considered inappropriate, then that would constitute vandalism. Before you accuse people of vandalism you should look at what intent they had. (A. Carty 19:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

The idea that barium compounds or F₂ or OsO₄ represent air pollutants is so extremely strange that I concluded that a vandal had gotten hold of your machine. Glad to hear no evilness was intended.--Smokefoot 22:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The original bodyless message (only a new section title, "Please stop vandalizing the chem pages", was provided) is an unfortunate example of non-directive criticism. It doesn't explain what is wrong or why, and provides no hint of what might be desirable or correct.

The category page, Category:Hazardous_air_pollutants , lists a criterion for inclusion. (That category page is now a little clearer.) Almost every solid liquid and gas is nasty when blended with the air I'm about to breathe. The category lists the air pollutants that EPA regulates. The list also excludes the few air pollutants regulated by NAAQS (SO2, CO, O3, NOx, Pb, Particulate Matter). Since sulfur dioxide is NOT on the EPA list, I suppose it must be removed from the category. (And put back into Pollutants, where it was before.) It is one chemical placed into the category that has not been taken out. ((OR, maybe the category could be broadened to include the EPA list -AND- the six NAAQS items.))

Though the few chemicals that A. Carty selected did not meet the criteria, many more pages should be placed into the category. Compare the pages listed on the category page against the longer list at National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants . This is an opportunity for constructive work. I added three articles to the category just now: Allyl chloride, 4-Aminobiphenyl, Anisidine (scanning alphabetically, completing the "A"s). In each case, I included an Edit summary: "added Category:Hazardous air pollutants -- it meets criteria of the category". Whiner01 01:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whiner: looks like you have found a project and a calling. I assume that the lists (EPA, NAAQS, ..) you are referring to are agencies in the US? Other countries also have comparable lists, so that might be a good project for you. Cheers,--Smokefoot 14:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whiner, I personally feel this is a meaningless task, because there are so many other organizations/countries which have such lists, and it will eventually become unmaintainable. However, if you want to pursue this project, you can scan this list Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Chembox header to find almost all the chemical pages. --Rifleman 82 14:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Side issue: A. Carty showed a seemingly simple-minded attitude toward what constituted a hazardous air pollutant — if it's poisonous it's a pollutant, without regard to occurrence. People who want to edit here should have a clue of what the are writing about. --Rifleman 82 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Inorganic Syntheses

Hi Smokefoot

I've been formatting some references; when I import the citation from Wiley's site into Endnote, it automatically uses the book series style, and that's how I've been citing them. I've made a comment here asking for volume number to be implemented, but since you might have personal knowledge, can you advise? Journal style or book chapter style? Perhaps we should create a template similar to {{OrgSynth}}? --Rifleman 82 19:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism

I thank you for commenting on my contributions. I agree that my verbal descriptions weren’t up to par. The article was barely a stub when I first expanded it, so it was just a basic guideline for someone else to assist in contribution. I attribute the failure to ‘meet the standards’ to being new for sure. However, I find no error in my graphics. I do have much more to learn about objective writing' though. I didn’t intend to sound bias regarding my “N2 is a great leaving group” comment (because it is a very good leaving group- NH2 is converted to it sometimes because NH2 is a very poor L.G. [which was an implied reason for expanding the reaction completely]), but I see how people would perceive it to sound idiosyncratic. I am not trying to sound sarcastic, and I sincerely thank you for your constructive criticism. (And the “Tireless Contributor Barnstar” award is impressive)--Manderson198 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the references. I took your advise to heart, and am revising as we speak.--Manderson198 01:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Calcium Carbide

I am curious why you have removed the industrial data relating to China and yet leave the historical information re USA intact. Now there is no reference to the current industrial importance of the chemical and the process. Axiosaurus 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response-I must admit knowing your contributions that it never occurred to me that it was malicious! I will not correct some vandalism done last night until later -the stoichiometry of the CaO + C reaction has been changed again. I hope you enjoyed your lunch! Axiosaurus (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sulfur

Thanks for the reference to R Steudels book. I have not been able to get a copy so far--I will have to chase up my library request to ensure that I haven't missed anything. Looks like the sulfur article could do with a little tweak- as it could be read as meaning that rhombic sulfur is colourless.
Oh by the way I would be more than happy for you to take a look at the work in progress draft of allotropes of sulfur. My next task is to do some pretty structure diagrams --although these could prove to be fiddly as I can't find CIFs of any of them so far. Axiosaurus (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Labeling carbon articles

I do not understand where are you trying to get. Nergaal (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am "getting at" regarding your labeling articles on inorganic carbon is whether you apparent plans for all articles on inorganic carbon been discussed with [group]. Such a discussion would be conventional consultative procedure for changes that affect the presentation/policy for many articles. In such a conversation, it would be appropriate to discuss your definition of "inorganic" (unclear if there is agreement in the WE-chem community over this, as illustrated by the conversation at 3). And for, say phosgene, is it your intention to have a multi-layered categorization for inorganic carbon, inorganic oxygen, and inorganic chlorine? If no why not, and if yes what are the implications for lots of layers of links at the bottom of each article? Will this presentation enhance the usefulness of WE - or otherwise? Periodically editors appear on the scene intent on sweeping through these pages with info on their special insights, or administrative ideas that inspire them. In such cases, consultation with the community is a good idea to gain advice and help.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First IUPAC defines organic compounds not as a C and H containing compound. The list on wikipedia about inorganic compounds IS WRONG! CCl4 is an organic compound. It is a functionalized compound of CH4. About categorization of inorganic oxygen would be a little excessive, but a categorization of inorganic chlorine, might be nice. Anyways, since there are not so many inorganic compounds containing carbon, I think it is relevant to link them together. There is also the debate if OCCl2 is a functionalization of OC(OH)2 or of OCH2 - i.e. if phosgene is truly an inorganic compound. Nergaal (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does IUPAC define that? Everybody has their favorite definition of organic compound, and I had always had the impression that IUPAC decided not to spend its time making an official recommendation, because I had never been able to find it. Please provide a reference. --Itub (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

commons:Image:Co2(CO)8str.png

Hi there Smokefoot. I was browsing your recent uploads at Commons (yes, I often stalk the contribs of fellow formula uploaders ;) and noticed this one is missing the PD tag. It might be deleted if you don't add it, and we wouldn't want that! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem (although I still don't see the tag—strange). Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi again. Does this look all right (that is, accurate)? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks fine. And we could use this structural drawing for many related compounds such as M(CN)₆'s (many metals, the most famous being ferrocyanide) and other hexacarbonyls of Ta^-, Nb^-, V^-, Cr, Mo, W, Re⁺, Tc⁺, Mn⁺, Fe⁺⁺ etc. I am inexpert at graphics, for drawing questions the pro is this Ben guy in UK. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hydrofluoric Acid

While I agree with your view that the safety section had become overlong, IMHO you have now gone too far in the other direction. Wikipedia isn't just a collection of links, and including important information in the Safety section would seem to meet WP's purpose, rather than forcing the user to plow though the MSDS, which many won't do. For example, the guy at the carwash who notices he's working with hydrofluoric acid is unlikely to read enough of the MSDS to understand the risk, but may well absorb the WP safety warning. Pun intended.

It is precisely HF's insidious nature and the relatively unrecognized cardiac effects compared to other common acids which prompted me to add a single paragraph, with a reference. When I researched HF years ago while I was working in semiconductor processing, it was pointed out to me that often smaller health facilities were unaware of the cardiac risk. If an Intel fab transports an HF spill victim, it's likely they and the health facility will have enough experience to handle the case properly. But what about the guy from the carwash in Sleepy Eye who is taken to the Community Health Center or even to a local doctor? This is where WP can fill an important need in raising awareness. It's not just chemists who read these articles.

Please read the WP entry on eMedicine. I think it's unfair to refer to that effort as '.com spam'. eMedicine links are commonly included in the medical sections of WP, as it is a refereed site. Cf. constipation, upper right. The revenue model is different than WP, but exactly what is the difference between eMedicine and a journal which charges thousands of dollars per subscription such that the latter can be cited and the former cannot?--Kbk (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Arsenic trisulfide

Thank you for providing the edits for the page to keep the style in line with Wiki. I noticed that some of the areas of the aqueous chemistry is subscripted by you. Is there some particular reason for this? The text in this section is not my doing. Perhaps it can be cleaned-up or verified? Exchemunist (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)