I apologize for the snarky edit summary. Sort of bugs me that some are so keen to enhance the hydrogen chalcogenide article with fluffy stuff about H2Po and water being a toxic at high concentrations, but don't seem to take the time to learn the basic preference for the 90 degree dihedral. I cannot presently access the NIST site. I did find DOI 10.1007/b13182, which indicates 90 SSSH dihedral for C2 and Cs-symmetrical rotamers of H2S3. My guess is that H2O3 is similar since H2O2 has a big dihedral. I guess we should reinspect the parent H2Sx and H2Ox articles as you suggest.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 7 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
As I said on the Talk page of the individual posting the 43,000 byte edit, I do not think this carte blanche article replacement can be allowed to stand, but not for reasons that have led others to object (e.g., disrespect of WP process, or overtechnicality of the posted product). Its accuracy/precision to the subject is its best point, and one can always bring the level down from where that 43K bytes of content places it. However, it cannot stand as a "just trust us" piece of work, with section after section of unsourced content.
I would therefore propose that you, Smoke (as you began the questions over this) move the 43K byte edit to Talk, in a collapsed entry in a new section, with a short intro, calling for its use as a basis for introducing revised sections into the article, a section at a time, with each edit demanding that references for the content being in place before the new section is introduced.
This accomplished both purposes—a respectful, slow and steady transition of the article from past to future (much more authoritative, accurate content), and ensuring that the right pattern is set for future, of no content from editors that is not sourced, regardless of their credentials. (The issue for future always being that less able editors following the pattern—of "no need to source"—after the credentialed leave, or change focus.) Reply here? Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About the Jahn Teller effect, those actions are now pretty old and I have kinda forgotten some details. As you can see we removed this massive edit for a week or two hoping to coax the team to return and integrate their edit into its predecessor, but they didnt. So I decided to reinstated their material and weave in some of the older lower level content.
I agree with you that this bulldozing edit by a committee was not desirable. If it were replicated, it could be a bad precedent. The situation was almost unique for the Wiki Chem, and the committee appeared to be operating at a high level. It think that it was a group of professors at a meeting.
Most block replacements are done by grad students egged on by faculty. Such large edits are in fact reverted by me and some others. So far, our small group of editors are effective at preventing large over-writing projects. Increasingly, these student projects are being forced into almost moronic topics lest their articles receive scrutiny.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You are taxing my memory, since it has been a while. I can see that it looks like someone was slipping in terms like "acute neurotoxin" into the lede paragraph, which is pejorative or conspiracy theory talk for a compound fairly widely used to fumigate homes. A statement that began "MIT-based study" is appealing to some sort of US-oriented authority - most of the world does not give a hoot about MIT-based anything. Other things that I typically go after are country-specific orientation (Wikipedia is global), ad procedural advice (WP:NOTMANUAL, or medical comments absent WP:MEDRS support. One approach is to reinstate the key components and see what happens. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is built on sources, you cant just delete an "MIT based study" because you dont hold them in high regard. They did a study, it happened. You can find some other study that found the opposite but you can't just go deleting things you personally disagree with. You seem like a paid shill by chemical companies to clean up things they disagree with.
just a quick thank you and don't be a stranger :-) This article needs a lot of work, in big and in details, we need to address both, I appreciate your fixes. YamaPlostalk21:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Water of crystallization
Hi Smokefoot, I have a nomenclature question. How is the following formula pronounced, beside the pentahydrate nomenclature:
Most people call it just "copper sulfate", since 99.9% of the time, one means the pentahydrate. If one wanted to be highly specific, one would say copper sulfate pentahydrate.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dimethyl sulfite
I found Voss also, but sometimes those old preps can have errors. I have also found a current one, saying CH3Cl, but it was a shaky source. I will dig into it tomorrow when I can get a hold of a couple of books. Did too many alcohol conversions with SOCl2 to let that one go. Also favorite trick question in Organic class.JSR (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be interested in what you find. The Germans didnt seem to mess up, they distilled many grams of product as their work up. I will check eEROS, which is very reagent oriented. My initial guess is that usually the ROH --> RCl is carried out relatively dilute, allowing HCl to dissociate to give the nucleophilc Cl-. As you saw, Voss et al also made the chiral MeOS(O)Cl and MeOS(O)OEt. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, eEROS to the rescue: a couple of quotes from doi 10.1002/047084289X
"Thionyl chloride reacts with primary, secondary, and tertiary alcohols to form chlorosulfite esters.... When thionyl chloride is in excess, or when alkyl chlorosulfites are treated with thionyl chloride, alkyl chlorides are produced ..." Not 100% satisfying, e.g. as to how ROS(O)Cl and SOCl2 react. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclohexanedione
Hi Smokefoot. Thanks for creating the article for 1,3-Cyclohexanedione. Can you please double check one statement in it? "It reacts with alcohol to 3-alkoxyenones" doesn't make sense to me. Should it read instead something like "it reacts with alkyl halides to give 3-alkoxyenones"? -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes good catch. I was wondering about that but here is the lead-off statement in eEROS. "The acid-catalyzed reaction of CHD with alcohols affords β-alkoxy enones". The example is isobutanol and then they give an example of a hydrazine doing the same thing. I think that the idea might be that the dione tautomer adds the NuH and then enolization sets in.
Yes, I need to put in the C-alkylation (2-METHYL-1,3-CYCLOHEXANEDIONE
A. B. Mekler, S. Ramachandran, S. Swaminathan, and Melvin S. Newman
Org. Synth. 1961, 41, 56
DOI: 10.15227/orgsyn.041.0056)
I was also wondering about showing the dione in the box when my reading indicates that dione is minor.
I would like to find the tautomeric equilibria vs acyclic 1,3-diones.
Yes. Acid catalized acetal formation, followed by elimination. I didn't consider that. My mistake - I got stuck thinking it was intended to describe alkylation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:23, 27 May 2017 (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 to inform you that a tag has been placed on Sodium stannite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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 removed 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have contested these two (identical) speedy deletion nominations. Robert McClenon, this was not eligible for an A3, it is a redirect page that was blanked by an IP. I have restored to redirect. EdChem (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2017 (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 to inform you that a tag has been placed on Sodium stannite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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 removed 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to contact a chemist (me). The article was ill-conceived but I repaired it a couple of years ago. So the article is good.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Steam reforming into Biohydrogen. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have probably copied a lot of content between Wikipedia articles over the previous decade. I would guess that most of the content that I have transferred/copied was a mashup of many editors' contributions, who added a word, a comma, etc. The other complication is that I modify almost everything that I "copy." I will study your suggestion and strive to be careful in the future. Perplexed and surprised, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another example: Yesterday you moved content from the article Abramov reaction to create the new article Pudovik reaction. Your edit summary says "split off", but proper attribution requires tht we specify at the destination article what the source article was. ie, "Attribution: content in this section was moved here from Abramov reaction on July 9, 2017. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, thanks for pointing out my oversight. I finally figured out what you were getting at last time, whereas I had assumed that content can be reshuffled within Wikipedia without attribution. A more detailed edit summary indicating the source of that content would have been appropriate. Not that it addresses your concerns 100%, but the new article was almost totally re-written so the verbage is almost completely new. If you see other issues, drop me a line. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just bear in mind, Wikipedia is not an advocacy group. We are do-gooders in that we spread general information in a highly readable format. Wikipedia doesn't nudge people toward what we editors see as healthy lifestyles. We are also mindful of not encumbering articles with minutia in a manner that obscures the main message. So those comments give you a sense of where I am coming from. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you can see that I have brought this topic up again at the chemistry project talk page, which seems to be the appropriate forum. I will offer this advice if you are not a chemist, physical reality is all chemical, everything - computers, cig smoke, whisky, bananas, road pavement, trees, ... and most of these things are composed of a very long laundry list of chemicals, including good, bad, and ugly ones. I know this statement can seem preachy (an accusation that has been leveled at me before). Chemists could fill all of the articles with chemical information, but we choose not to for reason of clutter and WP:UNDUE.
Thank you for reminding me of what I was told in the first minute of my very first chemistry lesson - apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority - patronising is a better description but hey I'm not telling you anything that you don't know already and I suspect I will continue to receive your friendly advice. Per WP:UNDUE avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views... as detailed a description as more widely held views. What constitutes tobacco smoke is not a minority view and WP:Undue has no relevance. Chemists could fill all of the articles with chemical information, but we choose not to for reason of clutter...and I always thought it was because they had better things to do.Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will follow your suggestion and take another crack at addressing gaps or bad deletions. Like I said in the edit notes, my impression was that the section was redundant and had crossed the line in being a textbook. Your comment is very welcome. With best wishes. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smokefoot, I strongly suggest you verify the information that I added about sodium iodide, and how it is not the added nuitrition that people think it is in that section. currently the section has only once sentence saying that potassium iodide is added to sodium chloride, table salt. I have cited my sources correctly. Please review those sources before completely removing my editions. I am willing to change some of the wording with you, but I believe that information is pertinent, relevant, and necessary in that article. I am willing to get other experts involved in this edit as well. Thank you for your concern. And no, iodine is not the same as iodide, it depends on the other element that it is attached to. Added potassium iodide in sodium chloride table salt does not prevent serious thyroid iodine deficiencies, which are caused by fluorides and chlorides added into drinking water. in the very next section of the article it uses that exact chemical equation i just described to prove that happens. the sources I cited are true and correct, and are used for medical purposes. Please review the sources, including the book not just the websites. Thank you. D.nungesser (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was unaware of anyone attributing CHT3-, but I see your point. The usual view is 6e, as in the classic [Mo(CO)3(eta-7-CHT)]+. But these assignments are somewhat artificial.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a pertinent paper doi:10.1021/ja00084a045 Nature of the Cycloheptatrienyl-Transition Metal Bond. A Study of Electron Distribution in the Mixed-Ring Sandwich Molecules [Ti(η-C7H7)(η-C5H5)], [Nb(η-C7H7)(η-C5H5)], [Ta(η-C7H7)(η-C5H5Me)], and [Mo(η-C7H7)(η-C5H5)] by Photoelectron Spectroscopy with Variable Photon Energy.--OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Robert McClenon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 1,4-Diazacycloheptane, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
@Robert McClenon: Not sure I understand the message, but do let me know if you have any comments on the article. There are actually two related articles that I have written recently. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest the "lone wolf" culture of wikipedia is starting to drag a little (no intention of quitting though loads of stuff needs editing). I know you are interested in chemistry related articles, so may I suggest a collaborative effort to improve the article QM/MM? I've never done a collaboration before and it would be fun to give it a go. EvilxFish (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EvilxFish: Hi. I cant help, mainly because I am ignorant of electronic structure and even weaker on calculations. I am also a hot-and-cold editor, depending on my time and mood. If you have any conventional chemistry areas, I am usually available to help. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@OrganoMetallurgy: Well its your own work and it is "dangerous" to ask me for advice because I am opinionated. If you have thick skin, my main advice is for the kick-off sentence where I tend for blandness giving classification, always preference for vernacular name (vs formal), and a structural formula (vs the empirical one in the box)
Pentafluorosulfanylbenzene, also known as phenylsulfur pentafluoride, is a colorless liquid with high chemical stability.Phenylsulfur pentafluoride, formally known as pentafluorosulfanylbenzene (no real chemist calls it that, only smart high school teachers and IUPAC bureaucrats), is an organosulfur compound with the formula C6H5SF5. your comments on stability and color etc as before.
Otherwise it is a good topic and nifty compound. We wrote up SF5Cl a number of years ago. I try for find something secondary, an application (probably none in this case), your historic ref to AgF2 method is instructive. Maybe pt gp symmetry. Maybe you can find a Hammett constant for SF5 substituent. In the US, the expert used to be Joseph Thrasher at Alabama. Of course a lot of Germans are probably all over this area. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all that interested in phenylsulfur pentafluoride in and of itself, but I made the draft because I'm working on an article on the pentafluorosulfanyl group and thought there should probably an article on the parent arylsulfur pentafluoride. There isn't that much infomation about it, which is why I only cited primary sources, but I'm planning on making a page about its nitrated derivatives, which have been studied far more due to their greater accessibility and reactivity. Also it is my understanding that the term pentafluorosulfanyl has become more popular recently and that the name pentafluorosulfanylbenzene would be the more common modern term. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the SF5 group is an even better topic, in which case you dont need a chembox. Here is probably the top source: DOI:10.1021/cr500336u.ChemRev is usually unbeatable.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been reading it the past couple days. Also the pentafluorosulfanylbenzene draft is completely separate from the one about the SF5 group. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With a recent Chem Rev, one barely needs to cite any other narrower source, perhaps citing the original first this or that I guess. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like it if you could occasionally take a look at my drafts/ideas for articles as can be found at User:OrganoMetallurgy/Drafts/. I don't know if you're interested in any of the stuff there, but if you are, I'd appreciate any contributions you can make to any of the topics there. To clarify I'm asking if you're interested in contributing to any of my drafts as well as if you're interested in creating pages on any of the topics listed there, in which case I'd be especially willing to help. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, which I have replied to. It got me thinking about the structures for these dyes and I think in many cases (particularly where intramolecular H-bonding is possible) the structures we're showing are questionable or perhaps confusing. Acid red 88 probably sums it up best; the page has 3 images - each of which show a different structure for the product. I'm guessing there's some truth in all of them, with the azo group allowing a 'crank shaft' like movement of the naphthalene groups, causing it to switch between naphthol/azo and naphthoquinone/hydrazone forms depending on if it can or can't H-bond - but there's no explanation of that on the page. I think that azo dyes could be improved by explaining these photochromic transitions. --Project Osprey (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am pretty sure that there is a lot of confusion in the literature. The author of the Pigment Yellow 10 X-ray paper, Whitaker, refers to that fact in one of his papers. You might be right that the way to fix the problem would be to discuss the tautomers in a general article. Some steps
it would be ideal (to me) to find example where the assignments have been made and then corrected
I saw you were the one who added the its formula as being BaFe2O4 back in 2007, and I'm wondering if you remember why you thought BaFe2O4 was the formula. Also there's some other issues that need to be addressed, but I'll wait to mention them until later. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@OrganoMetallurgy:. Glad that you caught that mistake. I cannot imagine why I made that stupid error in 2007. I just checked Ullmann's encyclopedia, which confirms your BaFe12O19. Keep up the good work.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did some searching, and it doesn't look like stuff published before 2007 asserts that BaFe2O4 is particularly magnetic, so congratulations, you appear to be the originator of the myth that barium ferrite magnets are made out BaFe2O4. (I could be wrong since I didn't search all that deeply, but from what I've seen it looks likely.) OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Benzodifurane (or more accurately o-Benzodifurandione) dyes
Benzodifurane dyes are industrial chemicals with no coverage by Wikipedia, so I thought you might be interested. o-Benzodifurandione is apparently the core structure of some disperse dyes. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my friend.You've deleted my 3D file because the structure doesn't show the atom valence. But the representation is 3D and none file shows valence in 3D files. For example, look at Commons. Let's give our hands and respect our friends works. Judge not to be judged. Please, reconsider your opinion or help me to understand it. Use Wikipedia to make friends and feel happy for being useful, not to persecute and depreciate the works of well intentioned people. Let us unite our efforts and have a harmonious behaviour. Strong hug Claudio Pistilli (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for your kind message. Best wishes to you as well. Spheres floating in space do not accurately represent alkali metal cation (or any ion). It would be terrible deception if readers were instructed that such spheres have any connection to reality. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aluminium
Hi, I'm wondering why you reverted my edits at Aluminium. While I am not very familiar in chemistry, and the hydrogen energy and Brazilian journal may be bad sources, I don't see why you also removed the rest of the citations. Thanks. Darylgolden(talk)Ping when replying02:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JAGUAR@Darylgolden: Hi, knowing Smokefoot it is likely you had an issue with WP:SECONDARY. Please note that while reviews are considered as secondary sources, papers in journals are considered primary sources and should hence be avoided. That being said he has made mistakes in the past and it does appear as if he also removed a text book reference which should be fine. EvilxFish (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your structures
Greetings Mr. Smokefoot,
So I noticed that you replaced some of the images on pages for nucleotides (I think I hastily reverted the one on cAMP, my bad). I'm personally not terribly picky, but I believe they don't really conform to the Guidelines for structures that some of the higher-ups are really insistent about following. Yes, I do know that the unabridged diagrams are easier to understand, but pretty much every picture of an organic structure follows the ACS formatting. Or maybe not, I really don't know. Sorry if I'm pestering you. IAMGOOMBA (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Wikipedia does not report to or follow ACS or any particular scientific organization's rules. Not sure where you get the idea that the AMERICAN chemical society would have any sway over this international program, but I realize your suggestion is well intentioned.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I bestow this tireless contributor Barnstar upon you, in recognition of your continuous efforts to improve chemistry related articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work EvilxFish (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Need your input (on something that will interest you)
Hi, Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Dr/Rev Smokefoot I would be most grateful if you chipped in here. They are trying to pass a motion which I oppose as IUPAC gives no guidance on it and it's not something I tend to find in mainstream chemistry textbooks. I know you love setting standards (your recent ROOH vs RO2H proves that). Hope you decide to get involved so far its level pegging on oppose/support. Much love EvilxFish (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could not have guessed better when you wrote about one of the articles created by "Carolineneil": "*Ultra specialized with little effort to contextualize. Reads like a essay from an student who is being forced to contribute to Wikipedia but the supposedly supervising faculty member has not bothered to read or understand policy and standards." [1]
It was a group of PhD students who were paid to create Wikipedia articles for an experiment. Broke rules on disclosure of paid edits, single purpose accounts and conflict of interest and in spite of multiple warnings never even bothered to learn Wikipedia citation rules. Many articles never were accepted here. Drew hundreds of administrator actions. Of course, none of this mentioned in the "scientific article" that they wrote about this - of similar quality to the edits here.I asked for the user to get banned, and I think a formal reprimand to the supervisors (one at MIT!) is in place. Antimanipulator (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Science? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated academic journal: WikiJournal of Medicine (www.wikijmed.org). Currently several physicists have joined Wiki.J.Sci's editorial board, but it is hoped that the journal will be open to all STEM topics. It'd mainly involve inviting articles and organising their external peer review.
Hi Smokefoot. Normally I can rely on you to write about importance chemicals, but Titanium bis(acetylacetonato)dichloride seems to be very obscure and not common. I can only see few references (Substitution kinetics of biphenol at dichlorobis (acetylacetonato-O, O′) titanium (IV): Isolation, characterization, crystal structure and enhanced hydrolytic stability ; Stereochemistry and lability of dihalobis (. beta.-diketonato) titanium (V) complexes. I. Acetylacetonates. So for this substance I can't find a CAS, pubchem or chemspider number :-). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. There are about 120 cites in CAS, but 2-3 RN's. I am waiting for the staff at Scifinder to get back to me on my query on the difference. I will probably go with the RN with a ca 100 cites but wanted to be sure. In terms of notability, the compound is the main acac of Ti, there is some patent work on ethylene polymerization, and several papers. So I anticipate that notability will not be a problem. But give it a few days. If it doesnt pass, we'll kill it. Actually, the main challenge is the multitude of names for this substance. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{tps}} The three SciFinder entries I see appear to have different configurations of the ligands. They are all "Titanium, dichlorobis(2,4-pentanedionato-κO2,κO4)-", but:
...which appears to have a typo in the second example of page 182. The first example would be the trans of your compound, and makes sense as OC-6-12, whereas the second is cis, and is also identified as OC-6-12 but would be OC-6-22 according to the description of the nomenclature. None of the CAS#s appear to be for a specific enantiomer (Δ/Λ) of the cis. DMacks (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DMacks: thank you immensely. I guess that I have been mentally lazy over the years and never took the time to deal with this symbology. Now I will take a deeper look. Possibly the last RN is for the mixture of cis and trans. Gratefully --Smokefoot (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Oh, CAS just got back to me: "The two substances have different stereochemistry, which is reflected in their name. RN 17099-86-4 has no stereochem and RN 16986-94-0 is OC-6-22 (cis)." When one does a search for the RN with unspecified stereochemistry, these hits do not include citations obtained when searching for cis stereochemistry. Surprising to me that specified are not subsumed into unspecified. I am going to ask CAS about that too.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly did you do the "When one does a search for the RN..." searches with specific (or specifically unspecified) stereochemistry? I just searched by molecular formula and got few enough hits I could manually check each one's details. DMacks (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks:Well I thought that I saw hits for the cis isomer missing in the hit list of the unspeccified stereochem. But today, I got a note from CAS telling me that unspecified gives all hits. So apparently I was wrong. Here is their message: "When searching a structure in SF with no stereochemistry specified, the search will retrieve results that contain both flat structures as those with stereochemistry." I hope that this addresses your message. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Smokefoot - Apologies for my mistake I made regarding the cofactor F430 page. I've not edited on wikipedia before but I felt the cofactor F430 (also referred to as coenzyme) page needed updating. I was just adding the most relevent and up to date biosynthetic text and relevent citations for this area. I was also trying to edit in the same format as another related tetrapyrrole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalamin_biosynthesis) so I originally included sections for each enzyme, but your moderation is acceptable. I would also like to further upload a figure for the chemical pathway, please could you advise?
@Gollums revenge:. We try to avoid primary references, at least good editors do. In terms of some advice on drawing for Wiki-Chem:
The main drawing mistake made by new editors is to include words. Any words. Artwork is used on wiki's in other languages, and words detract from versatility.
The other advice is the usual ChemDraw skills, i.e. dont re-draw subunits, copy and edit them. Keep it clean. Allign, distribute, watch line width,...
say something about yourself on your user page. Such information facilitates collaboration.
Stick to WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY. We often endure new editors who want to tell us their hottest new result. Wikipedia doesn't seek hot new results: it is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a news feed WP:NOTNEWS. Feel free to ask questions, I'd be glad to help. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Smokefoot, much appreciated - changed username to Walmercc.
Hi Smokefoot. I noticed that you removed the environmental effects section that I added to the mascara wikipedia page, and I was wondering if I could get your feedback on this section so that it could become an addition to the page. I cited all of my sources for reference. I appreciate your help! Kdeleo1 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kdeleo1. Well the good news is that you actually asked someone! Please recommend that your colleagues ask before editing extensively. That is unless they already have experience with Wikipedia policies. The show-stopper for me was to find that you apparently inserted a section on "Methanogenesis Replacement". And then a section that begins "On the other hand when airborne, iron oxides have been shown to harm the lung tissues of living organisms by the formation of hydroxyl radicals, leading to the creation of alkyl radicals. " So I figured you were loading random information. The article is supposed to be an overview of mascara supported by general sources. Your selection of Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia was good. But otherwise the article seemed to be either random or highly tangential. Remember, Wikipedia is not trying to explain anything. Just present facts, general facts. If your instructor is inactive or inexperienced with Wikipedia, you are at a disadvantage.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to provide an overview of the most common pigments of mascara and some of the reactions in which they participate in the environment because pigments are one of the three basic components of mascara as stated in the first paragraph of the original article. I had hoped this would contribute a more detailed look into one of the ingredients of mascara. Did you come across any inaccuracies in the information? Kdeleo1 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to present an overview of a pigment, then contribute to the relevant pigment articles. And then guide the reader to those places with a wiki-link. That is what links do. Titanium dioxide is a fairly mature article, parts of which are written and rewritten by PhD-level editors. Probably the same for any iron oxide. Mascara is not the place to discuss these oxides of iron or titanium. Thanks again for asking.
I will say that mascara and related cosmetics (eyeliner, etc) are a great place to contribute because readers are unaware of the technology that supports these materials. Kirk-Othmer and its sister encyclopedia Ullmann's (see DOI 10.1002/14356007.a24_219) are excellent sources. I doubt that one can write more than a few paragraphs on the technology behind Mascara. Hopefully your instructor is grading you on quality of your contribution, not that quantity. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will do that! I will just add a short blurb in order to link the mascara page to those two pages. I appreciate all of your feedback!Kdeleo1 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Environmental effects of substances found in toothpaste
Hi Smokefoot! I recently uploaded an article on the environmental effects of substances found in toothpaste, focusing on silver nanoparticles, which you recently commented on and edited. Are there any specific notes you could offer on how to improve my page? This is a project that has already been edited by my classmates and I thought it was a worthy contribution. I would really greatly appreciate any constructive feedback you have to offer on how I can improve my article and hopefully make it into something that can remain on Wikipedia.
Hmorg11 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will probably be removed once your course is complete. @Rlcooklsu: It reads like a essay where the student is being rewarded in proportion to the number of words. I guess the first issue: find a book chapter or a review that focuses on the topic you are writing about. If you cannot find such a source, the article stands on flimsy foundations. It is very unfortunate that your instructor is either unaware of Wikipedia style or uninterested in helping his students.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smokefoot, thanks for your critique. Our goal in this project was to synthesize different pieces of scientific literature pertaining to a topic and use Wikipedia as a way to communicate this issue to the public. Would this be a more effective entry if one or two reputable sources were a consistent reference throughout the paper instead of the several I have listed? I personally thought that because we read through and referenced so much literature that our article had a decent foundation, but if that's not the case I certainly want to fix that. Thanks for your quick feedback!
Hmorg11 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed this to Environmental impact of silver nanoparticles. Because the only material ingredient mentioned in the article is the silver. At least there are sources written on that topic. Wikipedia:Synthesis may apply to what was going on here. As Smokefoot says, let the review articles or books do the synthesising for you. And then you present their ideas to the public on Wikipedia. Writings in this silver nanoparticle topic may mention toothpaste, but there seem to be none just on this toothpaste impact, and in fact it seems that the bigger impact is from other things like cloth. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fireworks Edits
Hi Smokefoot,
I saw you substantially edited the pollution section of the Fireworks page that was uploaded by a partner in my group project. If you don't mind, can you let us know what issues you had with it? For example, was it formatting issues, or more content based issues? We think the content is well thought out and structured but we'd be interested to hear your opinions on it so that we may possibly work together and edit it for reuploading. Thanks! Rjbujol (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ask your teacher to help, that is his job. You guys are uploading really crappy stuff. Not your fault really, it takes time and experience to write about these topics and to learn Wikipedia's tone and mission. Hopefully, your instructor will stop asking Wikipedia editors to teach you.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Smokefoot. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Thanks! I haven't written that, it's somebody else's work that I came across while tidying up one drafts-related mess. So I take it that the text won't be reusable/copyable into another article without substantial rewriting then? – Uanfala (talk)13:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was only giving suggestions, many editors include English in their figures. And many figures and much text are re-used. We are welcome to poach anything from any other article in Wikipedia. I do it all the time. It is a good idea to mention the article from which you poach in your edit notes.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
