Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1-Pentyne, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Methyl group, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hydrogen bond, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Phosphoric acid, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Starch, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Europium acetylacetonate, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Thulium acetylacetonate, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Terbium acetylacetonate, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment
The last edit states, "New York is one of the few populous states without a public university with a large endowment." The statement is only correct in the context of the NACUBO list, and it ignores State University of New York as written.
While the statement on smaller populations is true, my minor concern is the subtle implication of a conclusion not stated by a cited source. With that said, the entire paragraph could probably benefit from another citation or two. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Redraiderengineer:I was intrigued by the earlier request for a RS, but it seems that the information provided by my addition is common knowledge, WP:CK. So what would one cite, a source for the populations of these states? As for New York state having few well-endowed public universities, that info is provided by NACUBO, and their data are reproduced in the table. Let me know what you think. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Triphenylbismuth, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Naphthenic acid, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Urushibara nickel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ethylene, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kavalactone, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello Smokefoot; I was passing by this redirect that did not look wholly correct to me, and wanted to ask whether the missing closing bracket on this redirect was intentional? No redirect currently exists with the closing-parenthesis, so this could possibly be moved there if that was the intention. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont)14:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply disappointed that you created Chlorosalicylic acid but did not fully develop the topic. As you know, the main namespace is not for drafts. You could have used a user sandbox for this. Wikipedia is not the wild west that it might have been twenty years ago. Chris Troutman (talk)19:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like recent specialized publications on topics one doesnt understand? Try these on
Yikes, that was indeed poor. I removed it from other-languages' Wikipedia articles, and it will be deleted altogether off Commons next week. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Thiazolone. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hi, I saw you reverted my addition of the factoid in Titanocene dicarbonyl. Of course, it is. But as the named elements were no links, the reason why the compounds are related remaines to the not to much fact based reader rather obscure. I changed the names of the elements into links. I hope the contribution now is able to please you. T.vanschaik (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thiazolone, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Maybe put CYPome as a separate page would be a good solution, referring to all CYP genes of a particular species or population? Meanwhile, P450-containing systems can be used to store more information about enzyme architecture and machinery and mechanism. Htmlzycq (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background: I mainly work on the Turkish Wikipedia, I have expanded the Turkish article for tetrachloroethylene (which is larger than twice of the English article in size) and nominated it as a Featured Article there. I plan to translate sections from that article to English and nominate the English article for Good Article status. It can require complete rewriting of sections but I don't it'll be an issue since I already have material to add. What do you think? ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ: I will try to support your efforts. Here are my initial comments on the article:
It is (hopefully) not important to make the article long to make it FA.
Some editors attracted to the FA nomination will know little chemistry but such outsiders tend to be chemophobic (and chemo-ignorant). So, it will be important to document that it is not so awful. One of the main reasons that it is popular as cleaning agent is that it is nontoxic. Unlike soap and classical detergents, TCE is mostly recycled.
Nonetheless, it could be useful to find info on biodegradation pathways and rates. I am sure that many dry cleaners dumped a lot of this stuff into the ground.
Although not combustible, we might look for its reactions upon incineration (inevitably HCl and CO2).
I will look for some chemistry (reactions) of this stuff.
You can check out the Turkish article via a translator program, it can give you an idea of what I've written. I did an extensive research on its history and old nomenclature.
In the TR article, I addressed the toxicity and possible carcinogenicity of PCE. I clarified the IARC classification with comparison to another materials classified 2A ("probably carcinogenic to humans") such as red meat and hot beverages (which the readers would be exposed on a nearly daily basis), so the readers can understand it better.
I added some information on its biodegradation, referred to pollution briefly.
I added the products of its pyrolysis and its other reactions there.
I will do the translation, but I might need help on formatting (esp. the citations).
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lidia Vallarino, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Good day Smookfoot. I know you're not a fan of this article as FA because you're not a fan of classifications within chemistry. That said, I'm asking all the folks who commented on FAC #8, and that includes you.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alan S. Goldman, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello Smokefoot. Can you comment on the mistaken inclusion of
Galvanic corrosion can occur on underground pipelines, water tanks and storage heaters
in the Pidgeon process article? I'm curious why would one associate Galvanic corrosion with a Magnesium process. Maybe you see an idea floating around in the aether that needs enunciation and then development. Cheers, Stickhandler (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Azo, diazo?
Hey,
This is an old image of yours and it's currently states that the final compound is diazomethane - but it's showing the wrong structure, should be CH2 and a negative charge somewhere (carbon preferably). My old copy of March tells me that aliphatic diazonium compounds are highly unstable - though admittedly that is a relative concept in this instance.
Although I have made diazomethane a couple of times, its chemistry always perplexed me. Apparently it can be lithiated. And then there is tmsCHN2 which somehow gives the same products as diazomethane. I guess that its ability to methylate involves protonation to give methyldiazonium?
I once worked with a guy who developed an industrial process that used it. His OPR&D paper is in the diazomethane article (though not by my hand) - He had stories. Apparently the explosive limits reported in the literature varied too much for his liking, so he conducted his own studies at a multi-kilo scale (on a military site), so as to be sure. Made a big bang.
Single carbon compounds always seem to have anomalous properties, often usefully. The aqueous pKa of methanediazonium ([CH3N2]+) is estimated to be <10 (doi:10.1039/C6CC03561B) so its not really acidic.
I don't really understand why you can't just make it in-situ the same way you make all the other diazo compounds: methylamine, nitrite and acid? Project Osprey (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the TMS analog, our article does indeed note "When used as a reagent in organic synthesis to convert carboxylic acids to their methyl esters, trimethylsilyldiazomethane undergoes acid-catalysed methanolysis, forming diazomethane in situ.[8]". I think I only made diazomethane once, just cookbooking with Aldrich's kit to avoid boom. The Org. Synth. prep using diazald does mention several routes from methylamine.[1]DMacks (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page N-Methylformamide, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2,3-Butanediamine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fausto Calderazzo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
I am not an expert on this matter but here are some perspectives. In terms of money-making, there is intense competition for high school and introductory college chemistry texts. My recollection is that the top sellers have something like 4-5% market share, i.e. there are a lot of choices. Many publishers are in that market because it it lucrative (and somewhat generic). We wiki-editors rarely pay much attention to these sources, it seems. Also, chemists and wiki-editors pay little attention to the publishing house, but to the authors. For more advanced topics, such as inorganic (my area), organic, analytical, biochem, pchem .... there are iconic authors/books in US-Canada, and different iconic sources in UK, and yet another set in Western Europe.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hello. Can I copy the tables and instructions for the chemical formula template on your user page to use in my user subpage (in another language wiki)? I find it very useful. Thanks. Necatorina (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:NMR spectroscopy, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article Reassessment (GAR)
Thanks for your comments on the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Zirconium/1 regarding the GAR process started by @Z1720. I'm starting to get the hang of them. I don't have anything in principle against quality reviews but the GAR process is very mysterious. Why Zirconium? Is it the worst GA in the Elements? Easiest to fix? Random? I think the reviews could start with a standard header explaining the positive case for such reviews, eg "To maintain quality across Wikipedia random/periodic/regular/occasional reassessments are applied to WP:Good articles."
The GAR process disproportionally affects a few editors. The original editors that chose to invest in the Good Article Nomination are often not around. The issues are rarely copyediting and mostly things that require a breadth of knowledge on the topic and time to find or reread references. The formal, full-process critique of the article somehow seems more damning than the same comment on the article's Talk page. And the normal rule on Wikipedia of no deadline does not apply. I think these are some of the reasons the process is often resented. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Holmium acetate, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
It's a fundamental reaction type and key mechanism. "Nucleophilic acyl substitution" in particular might not merit an article (it's arguable whether this specific mech has enough to stand apart from a unified discussion with the acidic/electrophilic variant). But for example this edit should link to something rather than nothing. DMacks (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok point taken. For the majority of the cases, "nucleophilic acyl substitution" seems to be jargon that would inhibit readability.
Maybe I am dreadfully wrong.
I dont think that ester hydrolysis requires the term nucleophilic acyl substitution. But maybe I should reinstate a simple article on the topic. The previous version was so redundant with respect to many articles we have on esters, amides, acyl chlorides. Your thoughts welcome.
The term "nucleophilic acyl substitution" is not used in
March's "organic chemistry"
Anslyn and Dougherty's Modern Physical Organic Chem
Lowry & Richardson's Mechanism and Theory in Organic Chemistry
IUPAC
the only review that has that term in its title "Molecular design of novel activated carboxylic acid derivatives for nucleophilic acyl substitution" By: Imai, Yoshio; Ueda, Mitsuru, Yuki Gosei Kagaku Kyokaishi (1981), 39(4), 312-21 | Language: Japanese
I've seen "nucleophilic acyl substitution" used only in two contexts, both to emphasize one variant of acyl substution vs another. First, as the two-step addition–elimination mechanism (what everyone usually just calls "acyl substition") from Friedel–Crafts or similar mechanisms that go through an acylium intermediate. Second, for acyl substitution (the traditional meaning) that occurs under "basic" vs "acidic" mechanisms. That latter is a useful distinction, because it avoids conflating Brønsted–Lowry concepts with the key "nucleophilic attack" (strong enough Lewis base even if not strong B–L base). But I don't usually hear the acid-catalyzed variant called "electrophilic acyl substition". And it's all a continuum anyway...all you need is "enough" reactivity from any combination of nucleophile and electrophile, and either or both can be pre-activiated.
Thanks for the perspective. My agenda, to some extent, is to minimize article titles that do not correspond to recognized terms. I mean, we kinda know what nucleophilic acyl substitution would be, as you imply, but no one uses that term. This agenda is part of a broader agenda that Wikipedia often has too many articles on overlapping subjects. Overlap is inevitable and even desirable, but eventually its too much. And thank you for tidying up some of my work post- nucleophilic acyl substitution, as in the Cannizzaro reaction. ---Smokefoot (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I hear It's definitely not an exactly-defined phrase in textbooks .
After the recent edits, I am convinced that some American governmental organisation is somehow involved in this article to portray the chemical as a "toxin". US EPA and CDC aren't much reliable in toxicity matters, they are government organisations. Using American governmental/state sources should be against WP:NPOV.
This chemical has been widely used for over 70 years. if it was as bad as people insist, it would have been banned already. The chemical safety standards were way worse than it's now and even then, carbon tetrachloride's use lasted less than perc. As a recent example, n-propyl bromide was introduced into dry cleaning as an alternative to perc but its use didn't even last 20 years because of its toxicity (nPB wasn't even too toxic). Necatorina (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necatorina and Zefr: Hey, I am a big fan of Zefr, but I dont agree with him on this issue. Here is a quote from the current article "As an anthelmintic, tetrachloroethylene was given orally to approximately fifty thousand people between 1925 and 1943. The most severe side effects were nausea and vomiting due to the gastric tract irritation. Most reported poisonings were manifestations of its narcotic effects.<ref name=foot1943>{{cite journal |first1=Ellen B. |last1=Foot |first2=Virginia |last2=Apgar |author-link2=Virginia Apgar |first3=Kingsley |last3=Bishop |title=Tetrachlorethylene as an Anesthetic Agent |journal=[[Anesthesiology (journal)|Anesthesiology]] |date=May 1943 |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=283–292 |s2cid=70969652 |doi=10.1097/00000542-194305000-00009 |doi-access=free}}</ref>" The opening paragraph relies on a 1950's source. And if this stuff were so bad, you can be sure that environmentalists would be marching in the streets. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only limited to tetrachloroethylene, there's a hate/fear mongering towards organochlorides and also chlorine itself. Government organisations, institutions and mainstream media amplify it. People would rather believe what higher-ups ("respected organisations") say than to do their own reading. Necatorina (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Government organizations are among the highest standard of sourcing in mainstream science and on Wikipedia, especially for medical topics like toxicity of chemicals implicated as carcinogens and dangerous to mothers and children. See WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDASSESS where national guidelines (i.e., governments and clinical agencies) are among the highest quality of medical sourcing.
Smokefoot - I cited the 2020 EPA toxicity profile (which is on the CDC's website, so apparently approved and endorsed by the national disease center), and tetrachloroethylene is on the UK's chemical hazard list and Canada's toxin list. Many other national centers with warnings could be cited.
One could readily choose from more than 100 publications on tetrachloroethylene toxicity. The chemical is obviously on the radar for consumer protection, health advisories, and need for more research - proving high morbidity for a toxic substance is obviously not easy research to do. Zefr (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so bad, why is it still widely used in most first world countries? Is the dry cleaning industry trying give us all cancer... or maybe it isn't bad at all? No, no it really is very carcinogenic and neurotoxic, why would governments lie to us? I stand corrected. I hope Necatorina listens to us and stops defending such a toxin. 141.196.10.2 (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know, why is hydrazine still legal? "Tetra ethyl death" as some in the industry call it? Formaldehyde? N-Nitrosodimethylamine? Get over yourselves 76.119.108.221 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrazine is extremely toxic and is only handled by professionals in PPE, you can use tetrachloroethylene at home with no protection and be fine. Tetraethyllead causes brain damage from lead poisoning, I don't remember anything with cancer, it's not a chlorinated compound either. Formaldehyde is very reactive and it causes cancer in humans because it reacts with biochemicals, tetrachloroethylene is mostly unreactive in human body and there is no proof that its metabolites cause cancer either. N-Nitrosodimethylamine mostly causes cancer from DNA damage. Tetrachloroethylene and its metabolites do not damage the DNA.
This is the worst whataboutism I've read in a while. None of the chemicals you listed have anything in common with tetrachloroethylene. While there's toxicological difference between chlorinated solvents, how can you give unrelated compounds as examples? There's no solid proof that tetrachloroethylene causes cancer, there's no logical mechanism for that. I'm not denying the negative effects such as strong anaesthetic effect upon and environmental controversy, just tetrachloroethylene isn't carcinogenic and it has low toxicity. Necatorina (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concede to Zefr who has the appropriate publications. Arguing that government labs are biased or incompetent is a non-starter (or even stupid), because if that it true, we are in anarchy. Also editors then become self-appointed experts, which is also very bad. Necatorina, your one consolation is that tetrachloroethylene is still widely used and is not about to be banned soon. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tetrachloroethylene is nowhere close to as bad as the article makes it seem like. It's hard to determine chronic effects of chemical, let alone a single chemical in an industry (dry cleaning) that uses multiple chemicals. Tetrachloroethylene is not used only by itself anywhere, always with other chemicals. There's no proof that tetrachloroethylene causes all that listed diseases. Listing them without further explanation is just fear mongering. 141.196.59.102 (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage you are getting close to qualifying as a nut. You might be right about the modest toxicity of tetrachloroethylene, but the case is closed as far a Wikipedia is concerned. So move on and apply your talents to more constructive projects.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do have something in common: none of them are banned. Very rarely are chemicals banned; it is their use, manufacture, and distribution in commerce that have restrictions placed on them which make them less feasible to use than alternatives. This is typically done through the U.S. EPA's authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Speaking of which... https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-perchloroethylene-pce
Thank you very much. Your explanation really helps one understand, a substance is not so much "banned", but you cant do anything with it.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please define what you mean by "political stunt" in this article. Ruthenia as a term simply refers to the territory of modern Ukraine, it's called history and etymology, not politics. Shahray (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to both the naming and "history", how is this off-topic? And again, you first called it a "political stunt". The term such as Ruthenia describes the territory of modern Ukraine, it's important to make distinction. Shahray (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? The article has nothing to do with Ukraine. Its a chemistry article, not a platform for people seeking justice. An incidental aspect of the chemistry article is the derivation of the element's name, which is mentioned. Emphasis on "mentioned." --Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not refer to a word "Russ", it refers to a territory of modern Ukraine and derives from a word "Rus' ".
"Who cares" doesn't imply to Wikipedia, terms that are mentioned in the article must not be misinterpreted because someone said "who cares". I'm restoring the content. Shahray (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shahray:} Who cares = your edits are off topic. Those reading our article on ruthenium are not seeking information on Ukraine. Your insistence will lead to some arbitration. Another fact: ruthenium ore is extracted in Siberia and in the far east, not the Ukraine area. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ruthenia" has everything to do with Ukraine. "Mentioned" doesn't mean it can be clumsily plugged in and misinterpreted.
"Another fact: ruthenium ore is extracted in Siberia and in the far east, not the Ukraine area" not disputed and is off topic. "Your insistence will lead to some arbitration" not sure of what you mean by that. Shahray (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit on Cockroach
@Smokefoot: Many thanks for your insightful question, "how does the organism ingest an insoluble high MW solid?" I probably would have asked the same question, had I not read this paper. The mechanism is complicated, and I thought, it may not be wise/prudent to put it on a general site. However if you so desire, I can certainly do it. Thanks again for this question. Neotaruntius (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neotaruntius: Its probably all rubish. I dont think that J Haz Materials is a very strong journal. How would reviewers of that journal be able to judge such biochemical work? Why didnt they publish in a journal where mechanistic enzymologists hang out? I am not demeaning you in any way, but there is enormous pressure to discover organisms that consume plastic because plastic pollution is so awful and so pervasive. At best, these organisms are ultra-slow. You will find similar reports in polyethylene and white rot fungus (for lignin, which apparently is real). Wiki-editors tend to be tree-huggers and so let their dreams cloud their judgement. Another thing, just because something is published does not mean that it is real. One can be sure that if it were real, some companies would be making money on this technology. My 2 cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot: Thanks sir. I agree with you completely. In retrospect, I feel, I should have been more circumspect about adding this thing. But this appeared so exciting to me, and on impulse, I thought I was adding something great [now I know, I hadn't :( ]. I had come to believe that plastics are here forever. One minor question on a completely different topic though. I sometimes, modify wiki pages myself just as you do, but I do not seem to be able to add my comments like you had. For instance, when I looked at your edit, it gave me this appearance "(cur | prev) 02:35, 24 October 2024 Smokefoot (talk | contribs) (96,457 bytes) (+1) (how does the organism ingest an insoluble high MW solid?) (undo | thank)". My question is how did you add this part "how does the organism ingest an insoluble high MW solid?" Can you please tell me? [I did not find it in help pages] I can then probably make my changes more meaningful, just like you have. Thanks in anticipation. Neotaruntius (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: dont listen too seriously to my comments/venting. I am not an expert on bacteria or plastics. Now, the more serious matter is your apparent inability to leave comments to summarize your edits. We call that the "edit summary". It should appear automatically when you start editing at the bottom of the page. In fact, my "preferences" are set such that my edits will NOT be accepted without writing an edit summary. You probably need to mess around with some fake edits and tweak your pref's. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot: Thanks sir. Regarding your modest comment that you are not an expert, may I add that nor am I. However you made sense by saying that people are overstating their achievements, and journals/reviewers are blindly accepting. You said that the bacterial consumption of plastics would be "ultra-slow". That set me thinking and I went back to that paper. In the conclusions section [which either I missed, or did not concentrate upon earlier mainly because the news sounded so exciting] I found that "Cockroaches consumed about 3.75 mg of plastic /cockroach /day." You said it instinctively, right? If this is not ultra-slow, what is? Just one plastic bag weighs several grams. I need to learn a lot from you.Neotaruntius (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Smokefoot! This is totally optional, but you've made lots of page moves over the years and are definitely trusted; you might find some use in sending a request to WP:PERM#Page mover, in order to move pages without leaving behind a redirect. Even if not always necessary in a Wikipedia workflow, you might find it to be a useful toggle in a pinch? I think it's worth it to consider! Thanks again for all your help. Utopes(talk / cont)09:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your recent edit, where my reference was "replaced [MDPI reference] with pubchem, probably more respectable journal". I completely agree with this assertion. However, I would have thought, that both references could survive, including the one that was deleted. May be I am wrong. But I have seen multiple references asserting the same fact not only in Wikipedia, but in books/journals also. Thanks again for your kind inputs, which you might want to give me. Neotaruntius (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ružička reaction
Hello, I noticed you added some of Ružička's articles to the page, which is great although regrettably I cannot read German. We could do with some help deciding what to do with the page since it is a bit undetailed and a merge with ketonization has been proposed (Ketonization#Merge_proposal). It seems like a good idea but I cannot find confirmation that the reaction is considered to be the same. Can you read German? I could not find a translation of those articles which might have helped in deciding. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed pretty difficult to operate as a chemist without reading German. but Google-translate comes to the rescue! My readings today focus on who has cited the early Ružička work. Another thing that I found was that he wrote about 40 papers on macrocycles. Ružička is a legend in organic chemistry, getting the Nobel for making civetone and related meso- and macrocycles using the ThO2-based cyclization. Here is one of several reviews: "9-Membered Carbocycles: Strategies and Tactics for their Synthesis" doi:10.1002/chem.201705919. Furthermore, a substantial fragrance industry grew up around his work. The acyclic decarboxylations apparently do not contribute to that theme even though the stoichiometries are very similar. More reading ahead...--Smokefoot (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the Ruzicka reaction is just an intramolecular version of a general process. Kumar, Rawesh; Enjamuri, Nagasuresh; Shah, Sneha; Al-Fatesh, Ahmed Sadeq; Bravo-Suárez, Juan J.; Chowdhury, Biswajit (2018). "Ketonization of oxygenated hydrocarbons on metal oxide based catalysts". Catalysis Today. 302: 16–49. doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2017.09.044.: "When the carbon chain length of a dicarboxylic acid exceeds five (Cn > 5), it can undergo not only linear, but also cyclic polyketonization. One such example is the ketonic decarboxylation of adipic acid (Cn = 6) into cyclopentanone, which is of great interest in the fragrance industry. ...Some examples of homogeneously catalyzed cycloketonization of adipic acid include the works by Ruzicka et al. [78] with thorium, lead, and calcium salts as base, yielding 15, 35, and 43% cyclopentanone yields, respectively." So I am inclined to do the merge.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ayy, thanks for checking that out, I missed that paper even though it is already on the ketonic decarboxylation page! It's good to have some direct literature confirmation that experts consider it to be the same mechanism. I might see if I can find a bit of history too since even aside from the new applications it seems Ružička was quite pioneering in that reaction type. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Triglyceride, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
