User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2016

Concrete

Thanks for keeping an eye on the chemistry in the concrete article - to answer your query, the cement actually contains the calcium silicates and aluminates rather than oxides as such (see Portland cement), although the silicates and aluminates are often written in ceramists' oxide notation (e.g. 3CaO·SiO₂ rather than Ca₃SiO₅) because cement chemists are fundamentally lazy. Actually, any more than a few percent free CaO in true oxide form in Portland cement is extremely harmful to the material performance (causes cracking, loss of strength and general sadness, as well as lawsuits), while crystalline SiO₂ or Al₂O₃ would be mostly unreactive. The basic definition in the EN standard (EN 197-1) is: ″Portland cement clinker is a hydraulic material which shall consist of at least two-thirds by mass of calcium silicates (3CaO·SiO₂ and 2CaO·SiO₂), the remainder consisting of aluminium- and iron-containing clinker phases and other compounds″. - I think describing it as being oxides (as it was prior to my edit) was imprecise and may lead to confusion. Johnprovis (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I knew about the weird jargon used by ceramists. It is actually fairly useful way of looking at things since it keeps the focus on component ratios. BTW, if you know anything about plaster or stucco, please look at those articles. I wrote a lot of the content from a very cursory reading. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Will do.Johnprovis (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Man I love contributors like you guys. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

citation needed HOOCCOOH

The reason I flagged in was the 'also written as' bit, ie 'yeh who writes it that way' I would have rather deleted: (also written as HOOCCOOH) But I sometime I think there may be a reason, so if someone cites it, showing it is on common use, fare enough. When I come back, after some time, no citation, I'd delete it. I presume there is a term for such notation but it is not used in lead paragraphs in WP (in my experience), and here it stuck out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 January 2016‎ (UTC)

User:EdChem added the name of this notation, and I wordsmithed it to avoid User:Mimarx's concern of this particular one being commonly used. If the concern was only "who writes it that way" (rather than "is this a chemically correct, albeit obscure, way"), it would have been clearer to put the {{cn}} at the "also written" itself. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DMacks' wordsmithed version is definitely better than mine, but Smokefoot was correct that HOOCCOOH reflecting structure and connectivity HO-(O=)C-C(=O)-OH does not need citation. EdChem (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ed and DMacks, thank you for helping out. It's a diverse community, in many senses of the term. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

n-Butyllithium query

-Reflecting its "electron-deficient character," n-butyllithium is highly reactive toward Lewis bases.-

I know this wasn't originally from you, but am I wrong in saying it is incorrect to describe BuLi as having electron deficient character?

Cheers, Tom

I would describe BuLi tetramer as electron-deficient for sure. Most molecules with 3-center-2-electron bonds are electron-deficient since molecules typically prefer 2-center-2-electron bonding. BuLi has the property of reacting highly exothermically both with acids and with (Lewis) bases. The acids zap the nucleophilic carbon centers (electron-deficient molecules can be highly nucleophilic, another complicated concept) and bases zap the Li centers which are really hurting for electrons, needing to subsist on sharing carbanionic ligands to utilize the valence orbitals. Its pretty complicated, so I use that kind of mental image. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kaveh Sina edits

All copyvio, no need to try to fix the wordings. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boranes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | Examples include hexaborane]] (B₆H₁₀) and [[decaborane]] (B₁₀H₁₄)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Molybdenum disulfide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• MoS|2}} using a [[pin on disc tester]] at low loads (0.1–2 N) give friction coefficient values of <0.1.<ref>{{cite book| author =Miessler, G. L. and Tarr, D. A. | title =Inorganic Chemistry, 3rd Ed|
• ..8..497L }}</ref> {{chem|MoS|2}} also possesses mechanical strength and electrical conductivity), and can emit light, opening possible applications such as photodetectors.<ref>{{Cite web|url =

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Kinetic data for for amides and alkoxides

Hi, Smokefoot! I want to ask you if you are aware of sources of kinetic data for the synthesis of metal amides and alkoxides using alkali metals? Thanks.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: See also talk:sodium amide and talk:sodium ethoxide.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw your notes, but did not have any special insights. These reactions are heterogeneous, involving solid Na and liquid ROH or R₂NH, which complicates mechanistic analysis. It seems likely that someone has looked at the mechanism or at least the process chemistry from an engineering perspective. For a related homogeneous reaction, possibly someone has examined rates of electride + ROH/R₂NH. Qualitatively, you kinda know that rate of reaction correlates with acidity and steric properties of the alcohol or the amine. The old classic book on alkoxides is by Mehrotra. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

How about the reaction of sodium with water? It seems a rather trivial reaction, has it been investgated kinetically?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I would not know. If one wanted to study that rate, it has almost certainly been done homogeneously for solutions of Na in ammonia, which slowly gives H2 and NaNH2. The trick would be to remove catalytic impurities. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

For adding Ullman citation to Ethoxylation. I don't have access to it from where I was at, to add pg nos. / section nos, to narrow the citation when I formatted it, so I have to leave that to you, until I am back. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

By the standards prevailing at Wikipedia Chem, it is my opinion that we do not need page numbers in citations for these articles. You and I just need to agree to disagree on that point. If you want to further elevate your concens, the way to go is the Chemistry Project Talk page. So, I am going to remove your tags about pagination, even though I again realize they were added with the best of intentions. Your tagging leaves a reader the reader with the impression that the article is shabby or flawed, whereas it is a reasonably informative overview of a big area of technology. Wikipedia-Chem has so many articles without even key secondary references, that my goal over the years has been to just address that glaring. For that purpose, I usually rely on Ullmann. Then, at some future time, maybe we can back-fill with page numbers. I appreciate that many readers do not have access to this source, which is protected by a pay-wall, but at least these citations give credence to the gist of the articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice edit

Lovely. A word whittler after me own heart. Too much verbal underbrush in these things. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Water fluoridation

I don't understand how your comment, "And the CDC is involved in yet another coverup.." [1] is relevant to improving the article in any manner, so I thought it would be be best to remove it. The comment comes across as baiting/harassing/mocking Jdkag. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a response, starkly perhaps, to the editor's innuendo that the CDC would promote a "neurotoxin" as one of their "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century". If one seeks to frame "fringe,"which is the direction the conversation was going, it might include challenging a major agency in the most advanced country. So my comment is not mockery but blunt rebuttal. At least in my view. Thanks for leaving a note though.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That explains it well. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Just wanted to say thank you for your advice and edits on the Triphenyl Phosphate page. It definitely helped to have the pages you linked as guidelines while I was writing and doing the research. While the class project part of it is pretty much over, I'm still interested in working to improve the article, so if there's anything that sticks out to you as needing work, I'm happy to take a shot at it. Awalsh621 (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert on jojaba oil

Good afternoon.

What part of the added history seemed like an advertisement? The added paragraph was about Native Americans, the second about the oil's use. The third addressed the first commercial use and the fourth about later such uses, which are business history. The fifth continued the topic and sixth related to the IRS. Why remove everything without exercising discretion? Thank you. Hugoott (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Hugo H. Ottolenghi

Thanks for the nice note and the opportunity to discuss.i recall that there were about 5 citations to some .com source. Airmchair.com, which is basically hawking stuff and is not a good source. The bit about native americans was already in the article. I removed the conjecture beginning "It is believed to have ..." Further comments or discussion welcome. The topic interests me too. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Bioconversion of Glycerol to 1,3-Propanediol

Hello Smokefoot!

Thank you for the quick respond to my new article "Bioconversion of Glycerol to 1,3-Propanediol", although you entirely redirected it to the article "1,3-Propanediol". I know and already saw that there is the microbial conversion mentioned but it is the details about the reactions, which are e.g. involved enzymes and especially the inactivation of the GDHt, that I wanted to highlight and explain with my article. I think it is worth mentioning.

Maybe we could consider adding these informations to the "1,3-Propanediol" article.

Kind regards, TBen1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBen1111 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Chirality

Hi Smokefoot. About a month ago you mentioned Chirality. What sort of changes did you have in mind?

From a brief look at Chirality#Chemistry, it might benefit from a slight expansion to mention some of the most important effects of chirality in chemistry. I would have thought biomolecules and pharmaceuticals were worth mentioning. Another obvious point that is not mentioned is most physical properties of enantiomers are identical, and any properties that differ are those involving interaction with other chiral things like circularly polarized light or reactions with a specific enantiomer of a different chiral molecule. --Ben (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ben. I forgot whatever grand plans I had. As I recall, there was some assault on this topic by the notorious tagger LeProf and then we were going to counter with some improved content. But that was some months ago and I have moved on.

Again, quite a catch on MoCl6, which I immediately built out from. BTW, did you check CSD for PhIO, because the polymeric structure would be welcome. My impression also is that it is often hydrated. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. Good strategy. LeProf is an interesting case. On paper, he could make very valuable contributions: he has expert knowledge and is a self-confessed university professor. However, in practice he seems to get into disputes and writes excessively long and detailed articles that demand to be read in full (or not at all!) rather than being dipped into as people generally do online. I get the impression LeProf thinks Wikipedia should be a handbook intelligible only to experts in the field.

MoCl₆ was interesting, I have a lot of respect for the German approach to inorganic chemistry. I checked for PhIO but there's nothing. The 1994 article referred to in iodosobenzene (Orpen etc.) found it to be a completely amorphous powder. The 2014 computational paper there didn't have any more experimental details to report on the structure of PhIO, so I just provided the diagram used in both papers as I found it useful to picture the concept. I get the hydration thing, similar to periodic acid. I'll keep an eye out for any information on that. A very similar molecule, PhAsO, shows the obvious preference for single bonds by forming cyclic oligomers. I've discussed it at Talk:Phenylarsine oxide and will probably add it to the article if no-one makes any comments within the next few days.

If you see any other articles that need 3D structures, or have unlikely double bonds, let me know and I'll do them all in one go. --Ben (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Seppelt paper is impressive. The German approach to inorganic is extraordinary, in part because the participants know the fundamentals so well. A snarky response to that success story is that German inorganic world got taken to the cleaners by US/UK approach to mechanistic work, platinum-based catalysis, and bioinorganic. I will keep looking for ArIO compounds.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Calcium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• compounds of calcium, occurring naturally as [[limestone]] and [[chalk]]. Above 825&nbsp;°C), it converts [[calcium oxide]] (CaO), also known as quicklime. When added to water, quicklime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Pyridinium chlorochromate

Hello Smokefoot,

Three questions.

First, for [C₅H₅NH]CrO₃Cl, why is the chlorochromate anion without brackets?

go ahead and add them, they are probably appropriate

Second,

With tertiary alcohols, the chromate ester formed from PCC can isomerize via a [3,3]-sigmatropic reaction, the Babler oxidation. Other common oxidants usually lead to dehydration.cannot be oxidized directly.

I hope I got what you meant by changing it to this?

Messed up by me, sorry!!

With tertiary alcohols, the chromate ester formed from PCC can isomerize via a [3,3]-sigmatropic reaction, the Babler oxidation. Other common oxidants usually lead to dehydration because such alcohols cannot be oxidized directly.

And third, in chemical reactions that involve typing in some articles in Wiki (like the one in my first question), why do I often see extra spaces outside the pluses and arrows? (Are we following the French?! )

Extra spacing between +'s and especially →'s is my quirk but it is my own, and I'm not French. In my opinion, there should be more spaces between +'s and even more separating arrows, for the sake of clarity. But its my thing.

Cheers! Georginho (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful work and the nice message about what could be seen as interference by me.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Smokefoot! No problem, no such thing as interference! I'm going to tweak the page tomorrow. By the way, I also copy the reaction line and paste it somewhere. It appears that the number of spaces isn't translated; so, they all become one space. Cheers!

Georginho (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Organic electronics may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• molecules include [[polycyclic compound|polycyclic]] [[aromatic]] compounds such as [[pentacene]]] and [[rubrene]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Watching you

Going thru the fluoropolymer page history seeing you making many edits. New to Wikipedia editing. Didn't take long to see how you made edits and couched their nature in broad language designed to hide some of your intended activities. Your changes under health and environment are worrying. I'll be watching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluorocarbon&oldid=593677858 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan 00010110 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. There are a lot of editors who are attentive to innuendo's or misinformation sneaking into articles by deceit or ineptness/sloppiness. So no problem. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I am in need of an experienced editor's eye

Smokefoot, I am asking for your opinion on this suggestion. I don't need you to publish your thoughts, just shoot me an online message. There are several other cases where I am suffering from the same challenge, and I'm hoping you might offer me some guidance. I took a couple months off after a previous go-round with this specific difficulty, and the cooling-down period doesn't seem to have made much difference. I'm wondering if you have any insights.

Thank you
Riventree (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That topic is just too far away from my area. I will add that, as a particularly helpful editor, you are encouraged to drop the recommendation you made on that article because for whatever reasons, some other experienced editors feel strongly otherwise. Not sure why the language is so strong, but it is best to gulp, assume good intentions, and move on. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Divinylbenzene page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/729152537

Hi Smokefoot. I don't understand your revert. In any case, it seems to be inappropriate to do it without any explanation/edit summary, because the IP edit cannot be considered as (obvious) vandalism. --Leyo 19:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You might be right, especially for that chemical. I should have explained. The editor seemed to be adding generic and what I thought was redundant and non-useful safety information. Lots of editors who are incapable of adding intelligent content, make themselves feel useful by adding such generic content. The Web is awash with such material. Wikipedia could fill every article with page after page of such content, but my feeling is that long generic, redundant warnings about various chemicals. One of these days, I will try to initiate a discussion of policy because there is a balance between having respect for chemical safety and keeping such content under control. So, revert if you think that I am wrong, and most of all thanks for taking the time to contact me. Right now, I am on a crazy schedule, but hope to get back to normal editing in a week or so.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Larrea tridentata page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Food coloring may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• known as "[[Azo compound|azo-dyes]]", proved problematic as potential precursors to nitrosamine]]s, which have been implicated in cancer.<ref name=JK>{{Citation |last= König |first= J. |editor-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

KAVI data on glycolic acid wiki

Hello Smokefoot,

The information I just entered into this wiki was originally inserted by KAVI on August 19, 2009. The content has since remained but its source (KAVI) has been removed. I am attempting to re-insert the source of this data.

Mattias — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAVI Research (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Here are the reasons for my removal: (1) your addition looked like a conflict of interest based on your user name and the .com site and (2) Wikipedia does not like .com sources. If I am mistaken please say so. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Smokefoot. The glycolic acid wiki has references from DuPont and CrossChem, both manufacturers, like KAVI. The username I created seeks to create a distinction between the retail arm of KAVI and the R&D arm. The source page referenced, http://www.kaviskin.com/info/glycolicacid.html, contains clinical data and should be very useful to those researching glycolic acid's pharmacological applications. Please let me know if this might be acceptable to you.

Mattias — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAVI Research (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Glycerol

Smokefoot, I noticed that you removed/reverted my edits to glycerol, stating: "NOTTEXTBOOK and pedantic".

I added a section on stereospecific numbering and naming as this is very important in understanding the nomenclature of plasmalogens. The stereospecific nomenclature is not adequately explained on any of the existing Wikipedia pages and most appropriately fits within the page on glycerol, since glycerol-derived biochemicals are almost always described using the sn (stereospecific numbering) system.

I added background on the numbering system itself to show why the numbering system exists and why it is necessary.

in your comment, "NOTTEXTBOOK" you linked to the wikipage "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" Under the subheading: "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" number 6 states:

"... Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples...Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article."

I firmly believe that the information I presented were "Facts" and that they were not presented in a style to "teach subject matter". I did not have:

1. leading questions
2. systematic problem solutions as examples

I am confident that the information I added was within the spirit of Wikipedia.

It may have been pedantic, which is a negative way of saying I was precise and meticulous, but I don't see that being a pertinent problem in any of the Wikipedia style guides.

I admit that I am new to this, and open for a more detailed reasoning for the removed edits, as well as suggestions to improve my writing style, but the information is a needed addition to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmbirkhead (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Thanks for the reminder on the established policy to use secondary sources. I have a few questions though:

1) Can primary sources be used to establish priority?

The article on borylation for instance neglects to mention the work of Smith (1999) predating Hartwig (2000), and in my opinion, misleads readers regarding the history of the reaction. The primary source establishes priority unambiguously and without bias.

2) Is an out-of-print book/monograph reference preferable to a primary literature reference available online?

Seems to me that for the purposes of verification that the primary literature might actually be preferable.

3) What to do when no review is available?

Is the existence of a review required to establish notability? Reviews are often based on what's trendy, and in my opinion, not an indication of the importance of the topic. For instance, a review on the structural inorganic chemistry and applications of group 11 hydrides was only published last week, although that topic has been gaining in importance for many years now.

Thanks for the info,

Ymwang42 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ymwang42: These are all good questions, and there are no strict rules. But JACS, JOMC, and JOC, which you cited today, are definitely not WP:SECONDARY and should be avoided. Too specialized.

• When it comes to precedence, primary citation is the best choice, I agree also.
• I also cite primary for crystal structures, since that information for metal-containing compounds is so fundamental.

Thank you for asking and keep up the good work. Just stick to very general information. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Please note, however, that the one of the JOC papers I cited is a review by Negishi which covers his work in the alkyne functionalization area. It was meant to take the place of the JACS, JOMC, and the primary literature JOC paper. There is some nuance involved here, because this was clearly an invited review, and Negishi certainly injects some degree of opinion into this article. I prefer the original citations in JOMC and JACS based their higher level of neutrality, but changed to the JOC paper after your reminder on the preference for secondary sources.

It may be difficult to tell just based on the title whether a source is 1° or 2° and whether the 2° source is unbiased. An authoritative text like the Schlosser manual would obviously be the best in most situations. However, it would be a serious loss to Wikipedia if the information presented is limited to sources of this nature. [Wikipedia and its neutrality and quality is something I care deeply about. Unfortunately, some scientists and their coworkers use it as a platform for self-promotion. Thank you for the enormous amount of time you've spent contributing and doing quality control!]

Let me know what you think!

Best,

Ymwang42 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wang: So long as you are aware of the potential problems and issues, just go for it. We can correct each other based on our opinions and argue as colleagues. There is a continuing threat of people trying to promote their work by publicizing their articles. Few people realize that tens of thousands of journal articles are published each year, and many enthusiastic authors think that their stuff is really deserving of special attention (when it usually is not deserving of any attention in Wikipedia). Keep up the good work. We need chemists who know their stuff. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not know how to restore my edit. I would like you to restore the text. Suffice it to say, I believe the deletion of it is well-intentioned but completely wrongheaded. Let's discuss publicly on the talk page for organoaluminum chemistry. Ymwang42 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just stick to reviews. Dont worry about it. Wikipedia is not Chem Rev. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Biopesticide page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Government mandated iodization of salt does not bring out strong feelings."

You have this on your userpage; I'm afraid it does, especially in India. Just about every important element seemingly either has a controversy or a puffery problem, alas! Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Small question

Dear Smokefoot, I added a new paper on superconductor into further reading section. You removed it. I am new to wiki. Could you kindly explain it to me? Thanks a lot and have a good day Davy2016 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for possibly over reacting to your comment about TiO2. Wikipedia gets all sorts of folk wanting to give advice on toxicity and debunk this and that theory, that some of us can react reflexively. I am not a real expert on TiO₂, I teach about it in a general way. Almost everything that I would contribute on this topic would come from standard textbooks. My favorite source FYI is Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, which has a large chapter on inorganic pigments (DOI 10.1002/14356007.n20_n01) including big sections on zinc sulfide, white zinc oxide, and TiO₂. Ullmann's is available by subscription but maybe you can cut a deal for access at your local university. Ullmann's has only a short paragraph on use of titania in cosmetics, "lack of toxicity, compatibility with skin and mucous membranes, and good dispersibility". Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Aluminium chloride "undo some sort of drawing experiment"

Regarding your edit, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Consensus?. DMacks (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking for some help.

Thanks for reverting my edits on the page Calcium. Would you offer me some help that I can improve my citation?

Eddie123e 12:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie123e (talk • contribs)

Thanks for asking. My main advice: Pay attention to edit comments from experienced editors like Plantsurfer. Wikipedia, to its credit, does not view itself as a reliable source, so we seek good (WP:SECONDARY) references from books and reviews. So go look up the ⁴¹Ca situation in technical sources and cite these sources. Happy editing and best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! Eddie123e 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie123e (talk • contribs)

Access to some sources

Hi, Smokefoot! I see that you are a chemist! I want to ask whether you can access the full text of the following sources Structure of electrolytic Solutions - 1959 edited by W. J. Hamer and E. Glueckauf, especially the page 97 and its surroundings, chapter authored by E. Glueckauf, regarding the derivation additional info concerning the formula mentioned on activity coefficient#Concentrated solutions of electrolytes. Also, can you access another source, also by Glueckauf Transactions of the Faraday Society which seems to be very similar to the content in 1959 book to compare the details of the derivation(s)? Thanks.--82.137.13.183 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Percobaltate

Check The Chemistry of Iron, Cobalt and Nickel: Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, p. 1107, which can replace the cited Chinese book. It cites two original articles in German and French. But to be honest, they were published in 1960s, and I can't find further research papers after that, so the results may not be very reliable. By the way, those stubs written during my high school years do have many problems, and thanks for your efforts in improving them. --Makecat 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and best wishes in general. I seem to recall that early on you were a lively editor, and I hope that you continue to help out.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Iodine

Thank you so much for your edits – they certainly remind me of how much I still have to learn about chemistry. (And also how I should probably not be quite so trusting of material present in older versions of the article, like the solubility-deficiency links.) I do hope the article is mainly fine, since I feel I have a great responsibility to get it right for the readers. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, thanks for reading my edits without getting upset or feeling threatened. We all know that edits and editing notes can seem unpleasant or mean spirited. The balance between encyclopedic tone and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is tricky. Good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for stopping me just now when I went a little too far into biological extrapolation – I really appreciate your work to keep this stuff right.

I'll be working up the rest of the halogen column on and off over the next few months, so if you have a few moments to spare on correcting me there too I'd be greatly thankful. I realise the section on organobromines in the Br article is currently hilariously inadequate – even I can see that there is no mention of what exactly Br₂ does as a reagent or anything about NBS at all – so I'm not going to submit that for GAN just yet. (Still, I hope it is an improvement on the previous versions of the article.) Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Methylene and methylidene, etc

I don't think it's a matter of using "official nomenclature", it's a matter of communication and understanding. Methylene (-CH2-) and methylidene (CH2=) are two different things, and that particular compound has only one correct name, which is methylidenecyclopropane. If you are one of those people that want to contribute to make Wikipedia a low-level encyclopedia, go ahead. I'm tired of fighting with Wikipedia administrators that think they own the pages.Daniblanco (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, sorry that things aren't working out for you. We are mainly focused on communicating vs following rules. The hit ratio is 20:1 in Google for the two terms. In this particular molecule, there is not a lot of ambiguity about where to attach the CH2.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

?

you over-wrote my comment here... Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I must have been tired and not paying any attention. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for always being polite and helping to quickly resolve the disagreement we had. Much appreciated :) EvilxFish (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Email

I've read your email. I won't be able to act on it alone as all previous information available to make the connection is not around. Therefore a second person would have to look at it. Also, while you do cite articles, specific diffs will help assert your claim as right now it sits that I have to do a lot of digging through articles and contributions to make the connection. If someone does target you, there are ways of dealing with that. Because of that and you being involved with the user, i'll recommend that you make the filing public, and you can ping me when you do and have diffs available. Please let me know if you have further questions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smokefoot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in this

[2]. Banedon (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

CH4CO2-->CH3COOH

Hello Smokefoot, why is that reaction premature ? -- Ktsquare (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Two comments - no one does this reaction (carbonation of methane), people talk about it, but it is not practiced. At least to my knowledge. Acetic acid is made industrially by carbonylation of MeOH and there are some old methods, including fermentation. In nature, CH4 participates in two reactions to my knowledge, neither of which involves CO2. Second, Wikipedia does not cite research proposals. I was very puzzled to see that source. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

1,3-Dipolar cycloaddition

I don't think we should be accepting self-promotional/refspam/socking. This guy's behavioral pattern has continued for many months now on this and other articles:( DMacks (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasnt sure but agree with your actions. I seem to revert so much of this kind of thing that it weighs on me and sometimes I get reticent. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

After sseing your contributions on chemistry articles by user Iazyges

Are you mentally unstable? I saw your mean vandalic edit on one of his articles. Seeing your userpage only reinforces the impression; you come off as short-fused, arrogant and a bit deranged--88.22.74.54 (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I definitely make mistakes, you've got that right. I can push back hard when someone repeatedly abuses Wikipedia as was the case with User:Iazyges. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Vanadyl acetylacetonate

Hi Smokefoot, do you know somthing about the solubility in water? I see in the box: "Solubility in water" and I read: "CHCl₃, CH₂Cl₂, Benzene, CH₃OH, CH₃CH₂OH". A word about it will be good ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)