BeaglePower

BeaglePower, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BeaglePower! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:BeaglePower/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:BeaglePower/sandbox. Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:BeaglePower/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:BeaglePower/sandbox. Thanks! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Electrostatic and Covalent Equation has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Electrostatic and Covalent Equation. Thanks! Devopam (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, BeaglePower. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ranking Order of Acid and Base Strengths (June 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrStrauss was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ranking Order of Acid and Base Strengths and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DrStrauss talk 12:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Visual, Graphical Comparison of Acid and Base Strengths (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Insertcleverphrasehere was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A Visual, Graphical Comparison of Acid and Base Strengths and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— InsertCleverPhraseHere 14:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Visual, Graphical Comparison of Acid and Base Strengths (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NewYorkActuary was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A Visual, Graphical Comparison of Acid and Base Strengths and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary apology

I just removed a big edit you made to Drago's EC thing. My reasoning is based on WP:NOT, mainly that Wikipedia does not give instruction and steers away from being a how-to, advicey, or textbook thing. Think of it like Encyclopedia Britannica. No bad feelings intended. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC) I am totally confused. I did what suggested to me to do. Put it with the ECW article. And it is rewritten from the orginal.

BeaglePower (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Hi BeaglePower, I think getting some assistance from WikiProject Chemistry is the best way to solve this issue. The regulars there are familiar with the styles and norms of writing about the subject on Wikipedia. I have posted a request for help there. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC) There is already a WP page on the ECW Model. The draft article could be re-written to be a section of that article.Italic text EdChem (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSAB_theory a how-to, advicey, or textbook thing?

Here are some tips:We do not tell readers how to graph data. We do not tell readers how to use equations. The E-C analysis is nice and we have a good article on it, and now the Lewis acid articles have incorporated the main gist. Here is my other advice: if enthusiasts like yourself add all of the specialized ECW nuances, you risk damaging the readability of the article and its impact. Also you might be mindful of WP:COI. It is not a good idea for Drago's people to be percieved as glorifying his work. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest reply. If more reviewers presented details as you did, less confusion would exists. (Drago's work needs no glorifying. It will stand the test of time.) The article I was attempting to present is about a clever idea of two professors at the University of Hawaii on a clearly and easily to understand way of defining acid and base strengths. There is no COI in my plot article. And that is also an honest reply.

• BeaglePower, I agree with Smokefoot that what you added is not appropriate encyclopaedic content because it reads like a teaching text rather than an encyclopaedic summary. For example, this is a part of your text

The the x or horizontal axis represents the complete range of Lewis acid types: on the left an acid that can only interact with a base electrostatically and on the right one that can only interact covalently. Real Lewis acids will exists somewhere between the two extremes. The vertical or y axis is related to the strength of interaction between and acid and a base. The intersections of the base lines with a vertical line of an acid defines the order of increasing base strength. For example, I₂ has an x-value of 0.6 and a vertical line from that value indicates that the smallest interaction is with MeCN, the next largest is NH₃ and the largest is with Me₂S. On the other hand, for Et₃Ga with an x-value of -0.65, Me₂S gives the smallest interaction, MeCN has a larger interaction and NH₃ has the largest Interaction. A totally different order of base strength is defined for these two acids. When comparing two Lewis bases, two possible cases arise. The two lines cross or they do not cross. If the two lines do not cross, as is the case for base NH₃ and MeCN in the plot above, then base NH₃ strength is defined to be larger when bonding with any and all acids. On the other hand if the two lines cross as do those for NH₃ and Me₂S in the plot above, then NH₃ will have a larger based strength for acids lying to the left of the intersection point while Me₂S will have a larger based strength for acids lying to the right of the intersection point.

Compare that to something like:

In a Cramer-Bopp plot for Lewis bases, the parameter R_a reflects the mode of bonding of a potential Lewis acid partner, from purely electrostatic interactions (R_a = −1) to purely covalent interactions (R_a = +1). The parameter ${\frac {-\Delta H}{E_{a}+C_{a}}}$ reflects the strength of the bonding interaction. The plot shown here allows comparison of three chosen Lewis bases: acetonitrile, ammonia, and dimethyl sulfide. The Lewis acid iodine (R_a = 0.6) will interact most strongly with dimethyl sulfide and least strongly with acetonitrile, whereas triethylgallium (R_a = −0.65) will interact most strongly with ammonia and least strongly with dimethyl sulfide. The plot also shows that ammonia is a stronger Lewis base than acetonitrile irrespective of its Lewis acid partner, whereas the relative strengths of ammonia and dimethyl sulfide as Lewis bases depends on the bonding characteristics of the Lewis acid, swapping order when R_a = −0.4. (NB: Guesstimate). The Cramer-Bopp plot was developed as a visual tool for comparing Lewis base strength with the range of possible Lewis acid partners, and a similar plot can be constructed to examine selected Lewis acids against the range of possible Lewis bases. (REF)

In my view, this is much more encyclopaedic in tone and is more what I had in mind when I said content from the draft could be re-written to be a section of the article. This re-draft is an off-the-cuff rewrite and could no doubt be polished / improved / further redrafted, but I think its tone and content provide an example for you to consider in looking at the rest of your additions. Smokefoot, how would you view an addition more along these lines? EdChem (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice on how to modify the Cramer-Bopp plot article so that it is more encyclopedic in tone. I was hoping that my inability to present the Cramer-Bopp plot properly would not be the reason for it to not appear on Wikipedia.

As I have mentioned before, I have used this graphical approach developed by Cramer and Bopp to discuss Lewis acid and Lewis base strengths with students and it has been very successful. As far as I know there are only two reference books that discuss these plots in addition to the initial article by Cramer and Bopp in the Journal of Chemical Education. Many teachers are not aware of this clever approach for teaching Lewis acid-base strengths. If the C-B approach were A Wikipedia article or mentioned in Wikipedia articles that deal with Lewis acids and bases, it is very likely that people teaching acid base chemistry will become aware of usefulness of C-B plots.

A modified version of the draft for a stand-alone article is below. But if you think it is better to add it to other established pages such as Lewis Acids and Bases and ECW Model, the first paragraph can be change to make it fit into those pages. Please advise.

While the last edit is reasonable the comment(as infuriating and self promoting as Russ was) is inappropriate and should be remove.

BeaglePower (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A Visual Definition of Lewis Acid and Base Strengths

A recent book by Lawrence and Gal points out that two properties are needed to account for the magnitude of the interaction between a Lewis acid and a Lewis base. A quantitative assignment of values for the two properties of acids and bases has been achieved via the E and C numbers of Drago and co-workers. Cramer-Bopp plots provide a visual definition Lewis acid and base strength using two properties of Lewis acids and Lewis bases exhibited by E and C parameters. The EC equation from the ECW Model

-ΔH = E_AE_B + C_AC_B

can be rearranged into a form which can be plotted as a straight line. Below is a plot using only three Lewis bases to show this graphical approach.

C-B plot

In a Cramer-Bopp plot for Lewis bases, the parameter R_a reflects the mode of bonding of a potential Lewis acid partner, from purely electrostatic interactions (R_a = −1) to purely covalent interactions (R_a = +1). The parameter ${\frac {-\Delta H}{E_{a}+C_{a}}}$ reflects the strength of the bonding interaction. The plot shown here allows comparison of three chosen Lewis bases: acetonitrile, ammonia, and dimethyl sulfide. The Lewis acid iodine (R_a = 0.6) will interact most strongly with dimethyl sulfide and least strongly with acetonitrile, whereas triethylgallium (R_a = −0.65) will interact most strongly with ammonia and least strongly with dimethyl sulfide. The plot also shows that ammonia is a stronger Lewis base than acetonitrile irrespective of its Lewis acid partner, whereas the relative strengths of ammonia and dimethyl sulfide as Lewis bases depends on the bonding characteristics of the Lewis acid, swapping order when R_a = −0.4. (NB: Guesstimate). The Cramer-Bopp plot was developed as a visual tool for comparing Lewis base strength with the range of possible Lewis acid partners, and a similar plot can be constructed to examine selected Lewis acids against the range of possible Lewis bases.

Changing language norms

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Ammonia, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)