Hi. I'm Russian and I can tell you there are in fact sources provided under "Литература" headings. Many articles in Russian wiki are translated from corresponding ones in English. They don't use {{cite}} tags necessarily everywhere. And telling you otherwise — the russian wikipedia is a huge pile of mess. Best. AXONOV(talk)⚑07:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In chemistry, English and German Wikipedias are more complete than other languages. The reason is probably complex and cultural. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean because my username resembles that of the previous suggested expert? Sorry, but I never heard of this article subject until I saw your comment. Even though I am a retired chemistry professor. Dirac66 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antimony has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 141Pr20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A delicate matter
Hi Smokefoot. I note that you reverted an image at Protoporphyrin IX from an editor that judging by his contributions has been adding lots of this sort of skeletal formula to chemboxes. He added that one back and I again reverted it today since I agree with you that it adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the compound. As far as I can tell, it is not even based on an X-ray structure, which might be legitimate to add in some circumstances. What would be the best venue to debate this? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manganese has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 141Pr09:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That editor seemed to be intent on proving something. What, I am unsure. We get these surges of often uneven revisions by new editors periodically, as you know. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came across your File:Fe(picNH2)3.png example of bond-stretch isomerism, and was wondering if there is any further detail about the spin states. I looked at the cited doi:10.1016/S0010-8545(01)00381-2 ref, but could not locate this specific example in it. I assume (and Spin crossover takes for granted) that the difference between these two structures is high-spin vs low-spin? So I wanted to include that detail, maybe even in the image itself, but was unable to find the detail. Any leads? DMacks (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will check, but almost certainly these two iron complex differ in spin state. Fe(II) is complicated because its not just high vs low spin, there is an intermediate spin state also (I think). Now about bond stretch isomer appellation, I dont think that the participants in that controversy (now settled) discussed species that differed in spin as examples. What I am trying to say is that I might have overstated (or "synthesis" in WP terminology) calling the two Fe complexes as examples of bond stretch isomers. I am about to drop off line for a while now. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Good work and thanks. The review cited by me seems not to be appropriate. Many dozens of crystal structures on the tris picolylamine Fe(II) are in the Xray database and I gave up trying reconstruct how I devised that figure. 31 structures have been reported on the dichloride with ethanol solvate alone... Anyhow, I posted a newer image with specific ref. The stereochem was also incorrect on Fe. No photoisom any more although probably that was done (LIESST).--Smokefoot (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FAR
I have nominated Hydrochloric acid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Keres🌕Lunaedits!16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed content
Silicon dioxide possesses the appearance of a transparent to gray powder and is completely odorless.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |title=Silicon Dioxide |url=https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/24261 |access-date=2023-09-12 |website=pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |publisher=National Center for Biotechnology Information |language=en}}</ref>
@MaryMO (AR):I am not an expert on the topic. My contributions are aimed at English and pretention. My advice is to follow your instincts and remove the flag and see what happens. Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These heterocycles aren't my speciality, but this article popped up on my watchlist. The File:CSD CIF PESGOJ.jpg stacking seem to have the rings either staggered or offset, but the cited refs seem to give a preferred structure with the rings aligned. I don't have full access to CSD. Is there a literature reference associated with the CIF you used for this image? DMacks (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Nice that someone is paying attention! I also was worried that the image was an optical illusion of some sort. Here are two images, one showing just the unit cell where I am querying the S---S distance between a pair of rings (which look eclipsed). 3 angstroms is not a bond, but something van der Waalsy. Also below is an image of multiple unit cells, which is more convincing but I dont know how to edit this image with CSD to make it presentable. Maybe we should stick a cropped version latter in the article. You welcome to crop it within Commons and then replace CSD CIF PESGOJ.jpg.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
image of part of structure of solid 1,2-dithia-3,5-diazole S2N2CH
@Leyo:. I think that you have warned me about that problem previously. I will be more careful. JPG is the default output for the OLEX program that I use, but someone just showed me how to get png's. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That might well be the case, but I wouldn't call it "warned". Thanks for having a look into this and for the new PNG version (that looks good). --Leyo21:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you reverted the edits I made to the porphine page (excepted for my removal of incorrect information recently added). Not only it reverted to the somewhat awkward and repetitive phrasing that I had improved, it also removed useful information about solubility that tied into what was already on the page. Moreover I do not see the purpose of adding some random porphyrins on a page that is for a specific compound. What was the reason for all this? -Choucas Bleu (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Choucas Bleu: Because the revision was in my opinion misleading and difficult to read. The opening sentence of jammed with technical adjectives that would confuse most readers. It's an organic compound first and foremost. And all the other adjectives can be applied latter. Porphine is not naturally occurring, and it has nothing to do with acne. I apologize if my actions were too abrupt, but I was thinking of readers, not you when I made the edit. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the opening sentence making it unclear, to the contrary it immediately highlighted what is important about this compound, instead of bringing it on later piecemeal. I am not asking about it because my feelings were hurt, but because I genuinely feel that the readability was improved by my edit making it more concise. Also there seems to be some confusion there, I know very well that the acne part was bogus, I am the one who removed that part from the article. -Choucas Bleu (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Go for it. So you think that aromaticity is a key attribute of porphine, and that readers need to know this aspect from the get-go? Now, what exactly is aromaticity? Huckel rule, something to do with heat of combustion, sweet-smelling, undergoes electrophilic substitution? Beats me. And who cares for this hypothetical species? But have at it, no problem here (really).--Smokefoot (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typical ref spamming or ref bombing indicident. Characteristics: unregistered, unindentified editor, sudden release of several edits, often narrow journals (RSC Advances, Molecules, Frontiers...), one name reappears,
Its not evil, and fairly normal human nature. But we dont want this kind of contribution in Wikipedia because the selection is not based on a balanced perspective.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
3.png){kind=link}
