Just wanted to say thank you, the additions on the page are looking really nice. I was stumped and trying to re-think the page. DF
I was curious how you thought links to reliable sources on a talk page were not constructive. Looks like it was an annoying anti-fluoridation sock but still. Vandalism? Shootbamboo ( talk) 23:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately the infamous "fluoride spammer" has now received the hardest sanction possible here, a community imposed indef ban. That doesn't mean they won't try again. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Are there really essential fatty acids or is this some sort of marketing ploy by health food vendors? I have been editing in that area and was surprised to read about them. I never ran into them in biochem classes. Thanks,-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do to put in some general refs from academic nutrition books. There is some quackery out there (like pills that contain w-9 because olive oil is cheap) but most of the fish oil supplements are worth taking, actually, unless you eat cold water ocean fish regularly.
BTW, there is some evidence that that bad reputation of saturated fats are from experiments in which animals were fed only hydrogenated coconut oil for their fat source. hydrogenation destroys all essential fatty acids because it destroys all PUFAs. On such a diet, even DOGS get severe atherosclerosis, and they are species highly resistant to it (their HDLs are higher than their LDLs). So all this is quite fascinating-- some of we thought was bad effects of tropical ssturated fats, was from studies that accidentally caused EFA deficiency. S B H arris 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot, We truly want to work with the community for our courses, and as we are about to try something new, I thought that I would consult you for your thoughts and ideas. We would like to take advantage of the new media allowances on Wikipedia and insert animations for readers to better understand the arrow-pushing process of mechanisms. We create animations using a gifbuilder, and I have added one here in EAS. What are your thoughts about these animations? and How can we best insert them/make them stick and for the community to accept them? Thanks for all of your help! MichChemGSI ( talk) 07:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Smokefoot, Thank you very much for your very judicious comment on the structure of the bifluoride anion in the ammonium bifluoride and the potassium bifluoride. It is true that HF is a very weak acid, simply because the fluoride mono-atomic anions is very small and strongly attracts the proton. As you very judiciously mentioned: fluoride is a strong base. I totally overlooked the text on top of the ammonium bifluoride page, simply because all my attention was drawn by the problematic systematic names in the diff view. It is the picture on Pubchem with the non-dissociated HF molecule that let me think more into detail to the structure of this compound and of the bifluoride anion. Quite logically, the considerable strength of the hydrogen bond between a small fluoride anion and a HF molecule explains the formation of the difluoride anion: F- + HF —> HF2-. It is also well explained on the discussion page of potassium bifluoride. :-) Best wishes and a happy new year, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 17:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. By looking at your contributions it seems to me you are knowledgeable in the field of biochemistry. Your help in this very young article is most welcome and valuable. Thank you, -- BatteryIncluded ( talk) 01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the this diff and the edit summary. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you hide your concerns in an edit summary? If you think it is OR, then you should raise the concern elsewhere, not in an edit summary. Also, if you think my picture is a scam, I could make a larger quantity, but I have a very limited supply of cobalt(II) chloride. -- 98.221.179.18 ( talk) 19:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC) a.k.a. User:Chemicalinterest
I thought about doing it because that lots of things in the list of things in cigarettes isn't in the cigarette additives category page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot, somebody reworked the fluorine article, If you like you can have a look if it is OK. Thanks!-- Stone ( talk) 23:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Smokefoot for leaving my entry. I was baffled as to why it kept disappearing. I am a very new newbie at all this as you will have realised. I did know not to put in any commercial references but have not been able to find anything published recently to suit. My aim with this entry is to entice a neuroscientist or equally knowledgeable specialist to edit this page with current information on what I have found to be a remarkable nutritional supplement. Kind regards ( Everjanet ( talk) 05:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC))
I tried to correct this mistake before but was reverted by the editor who hijacked this article. I also once thuoght that HF from fluoroapatite is the main source of HF, but it not. To quote from Ullmann's encyclopedia (emphasis added): "The industrial processes for the manufacture of anhydrous hydrofluoric acid are all based on the action of sulfuric acid on fluorite. However, phosphate rock, which contains fluorapatite, CaF2·3 Ca3(PO4)2, constitutes the most important natural reserves of fluorine..." -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for you tidying of my edits to the CuCN page. I am quite new to editing Wikipedia but would like get involved and any pointers or advice would be much appreciated. I believe that I can leave you a message here and you can leave a reply, I will find out soon...
I have a fair amount of experience of inorganic chemistry (in particular the cyanides of groups 10 and 11), structure determination using powder X-ray diffraction and total neutron diffraction diffraction. I have just completed my PhD "The Structure and Negative Thermal Expansion of Low-Dimensional Compounds". I am interested that you believe that my references are too specific what would you consider more appropriate? The articles I cite are in peer reviewed journals which I believed should be suitable as they are the most recent structure determinations.
On the CuCN page I have edited some points I am unsure how to reference:
All the best
Edd B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.50.57 ( talk) 14:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am in the process of registering, I had previously created an account which I lost the password for. I have written to you in the hope that I can get a better idea of what is appropriate and appreciate your time. I also understand that most people on wikipedia have a high level of knowledge in the subject about which they are writing. Both The Chemistry of Cyano Complexes, by Sharp and Cyanogen Compounds, by Williams are very good overviews but are quite dated and some of the information in them is incorrect. The review by Dunbar and Hienze is very informative and well laid out but doesn't cover the structures of the cyanides of groups 10 and 11 because it was written in 1997. I will however try in future to reference text books rather than academic journals.
On the colour, it is true that most d10 metal compounds are white (no possible d-d transitions) but I have never seen a pure white CuCN sample. My edits have been trying to reduce reference to it being green as I also believe that this page should reflect the true colour of a pure sample. I am unsure what most of the world CuCN is used for but I doubt that it is in electroplating or as a biocide as cyanide compounds have a bad reputation. As an Encyclopaedia I believe that the crystal structure and simple chemistry should be covered to the same level as in a text book is this correct in your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.50.57 ( talk) 10:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hope you like the new pictures and cheers for the push to sign up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbe85 ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Yikrazuul and I found some inconsistencies in your commons:File:Methanofuran.png structure (noted in the {{ disputed chem}} box on that image-page). DMacks ( talk) 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I have followed this story for some time. All participants are PhD level scientists who overtime learned WP policies and stopped boldly pushing their edits through. Thus civilized communication is a must (you are a too valuable contributor to be lost in ANI threads, and time is too valuable for that when there is so much work to be done around). There might be WP:RS arguments against articles by Bolto and the melanin image, though even this is not that easy - Aust. J. Chem. is an obscure journal, but with an impact factor. I see no reason to dismiss books by Okamoto and Intzel. To me this is akin the carbon nanotube discovery, i.e. I have no doubt conducting polymers were studied and reported well before Heeger et al., but perhaps nobody listened to the reporters. Thus I would focus on NPOV reflection of the facts. Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit is a pretty bold statement that Cp as a ligand gives compounds that are not useful except in teaching labs. I don't think Tebbe's reagent is used as a teaching-lab example, but it (and related) seem quite popular in research labs. In general, CpNa appears to be a commercially significant chemical. I remember a lecture a few years ago where a researcher at a scale-up/pilot plant was complaining about the quality of that chemical being variable from drum to drum. Do you have a cite that CpM complexes are of little commercial value? DMacks ( talk) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wanted to follow-up your talk page comments here and thank you again for your advice. I see from the conducting polymers section above what you meant about how naming people in sections on the history of a science can get passions aroused. I also enjoyed reading the 'hall of strangeness' on your user page, and the bit about water fluoridation brought a wry smile to my face, though mentioning iodised salt might be tempting fate (we do have an article on it, but not as much turbulence around it as you noted).
If you are still interested in the rewrite of the physical chemistry article, I'm going to make some notes on the talk page in an attempt to identify what the main sections should be for such an article, and which sub-disciplines don't warrant a separate section, as I suspect the current arrangement confuses things somewhat and gives some areas undue emphasis. My main problem is getting an accurate overview of what the current sub-disciplines are, especially given the rapid rate of fragmentation and specialisation over the last decade or two (I think it would be fair to say that has been the case). Essentially, I'm looking for a summary of how physical chemistry has changed over the last 20 years. If I'm better off asking DMacks or Materialscientist, I'll do that, but I wanted to ask you first as you were kind enough to comment at the article talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion at: Talk:Iodine#Why_change_heading:_.22Protection_from_radioactive_fallout_.3D.3D.3E_Human_health.22.3F Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
My first draft is now ready at User:Petergans/m. Please have a look at it an edit/comment as you see fit. I've run out of ideas on
Spelling is a bugbear. I have run a spell-checker, but my typing is terrible, so I expect some errors to have been missed. Petergans ( talk) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your prompt review of the pages dealing with Zirconium alloys and Zirconium in relation with the reaction of Zr alloys with water at high temperature. Appreciated. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 15:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you can take a look at Tolman electronic parameter. Don't know whether Chadwick A. Tolman's still alive and I can't find much. Maybe you have more to say. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah okay... thanks! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, WP:NOTNEWS is talking about article level notability, not individual pieces of information in an article. That's why that particular entry links twice to notability. I included 3 different kinds of crimes committed with clear citations for both. The removal of the second two pieces of information has now left the introductory sentence making uncited claims. Sorry, but this is as often used plot device in fiction and as talk has indicated many people have shown up wondering about it. Since it's something that actually happens, and has been happening on record for over a hundred years, a couple sentences won't cover it.-- Crossmr ( talk) 22:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey SF
Trying to draw pictures for your article. The charges don't balance (and the N-O ligand is a little uncommon...) It should be N-O−? Anyway, that makes it short of a counter cation. What is typical? I tried looking at the Japanese paper but I suppose biologists don't worry about that too much. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I usually just give it a chembox of a representative compound which exists... but some newbies aren't respecting what we've agreed upon - cations radicals and other fragments which don't exist in isolation don't get a chembox. I'll take a look. Thanks. I think a problem is biologists don't worry about charges needing to be balanced. The same way in biology electrons and protons appear and disappear out of nowhere... -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You might want to consider submitting it for wp:DYK. Cheers, Nergaal ( talk) 06:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the correction I really appreiciate it-- Geo7777 ( talk) 15:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, that's what the J. Chem. Ed. article says, that cobalt isomerizes it to the alpha olefin. I'll go take a look at the cited works when I have a little time. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 02:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Well it's probably true then. I had always assumed that there basically were no internal olefins after the oligomerization. I was going to mention SHOP in olefin metathesis, but that article is awkward to work with. I wonder how such alpha-olefins are made now that SHOP has been phased out, it appears. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You may well be correct about the structure - I constructed it from the SMILES, if the structure is wrong, can I suggest you delete the SMILES as well. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Smokefoot, we need to continue our discussion of your intervention in the (erstwhile) student project article on Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism in my talk page. Please respond there. By the way, reading your talk page reveals that you are quite opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia: School and university projects and Wikipedia: template for educational assignments. UM BIOE120 Instructor ( talk) 05:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Any reason for changing my balanced equations there, or just an overwrite with an off-line version? Materialscientist ( talk) 23:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Here is what I corrected from (I didnt know it was yours):
Incorrect stoichiometry and doesnt balance. The oxidation of an alcohol to a carbonyl is a 2e change and the Cr(VI) is a 3e oxidant. And then this one
Again, incorrect stoichiometry and doesnt balance. The oxidation of an alcohol to a carboxylic acid is a 3e change.
Here are the equations that I revised to:
I think htat my revisions are balanced, but I often make mistakes too. At least the charges are. More importantly, the stoichiometries should differ so that readers understand that the former is a 2e change and the latter is a 3e oxidation. But I am open to suggestions. No ill-will was intended by my edits. I am kinda trained in this area, but highly fallable. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 00:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
About the bot thing, I prefer to read the citation without clicking on a link. I suspect others do too. Even if there is a slight risk of typo's. The only typo's that matter would be in the DoI. But maybe I am missing something.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! DMacks ( talk) 16:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on Common reagents. However, I have a few concerns. The article is obviously not original research. All the information can easily be found from reputable sources and from elsewhere on Wikipedia. Its just condensed and organized into a list for ease of reference. Also, I'm not sure if the comment about the chemist thing is either appropiate or neccesary. Please refrain from making unconstructive and useless comments. On another note, I can see the usefulness of merging Common reagents with Reagent, but I think it would be better just linked to it. I hope I haven't offended you. Explodo-nerd ( talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This edit summary is priceless! You made my day. -- Ben ( talk) 15:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I tracked down some information on fluoride doses and added some information to fluoride toxicity. Quick question, does Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry really state 1 g of sodium fluoride is lethal? i.e. that would be 6.4 mg/kg of elemental fluoride (in a 70 kg adult), Seems quite low when children typically tolerate up to 8.4 mg/kg of elemental fluoride, i.e. that dose in children only produced mild self limited GI effects. [4]. Could you check that for me? If correct I guess you can add it back but I think it may be wrong. Also the fluorine page does not make any sense (i.e it states 28 milligrams per kilogram of body mass (5–10 g for a 70 kg human)) this doesn’t add up, perhaps we could use the information from fluoride toxicity in fluorine as well. Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Labiblia (
talk) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)There are leading scientists that are now saying sodium fluoride is harmful for you if ingested in any quantities. Why do you insist on having a straw man argument and use name calling in place of real science? Sodium Fluoride is harmful for humans period and it's bio-cumulative. Would you like me to share with you valid studies on the subject for discussion?
Chad is alive and well in Wilmington DE. He is a frequent writer on global warming. Anything you would like me to update? I am in touch with him on a monthly basis. Littelinfo ( talk) 02:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear that I am "an uncalibrated, tone-deaf cheerleader for all things that happened at DuPont in the earlier times." Nice to know that the work is appreciated. Yes, I started a number of DuPont-related items because thatis what I know. But I also started some Monsanto, Shell Emoryville and other items. I happen to like chemical research and I happen to be old. And it cannot be too hard to figure out who I am.
All of the Earl references were in response to a deletion of an item because it was under-referenced. Just wanted to see what would happen. Guess you demonstrated it to me, though there are a number of references I would have retained. I didn't particularly like Earl, but I though he deserved mention in Wikipedia. I don't think of it as chearleading. And I don't understand the tone-deaf part. In fact, I am quite musical. Please explain. Thanks.
Littelinfo ( talk) 02:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I prefer conveying information ina positive manner to being drab and encyclopedic. I admit that I would go insane using the style of an encyclopedia at all times - not my thing. I try to initiate articles and and get new thread going in the hope that other will fill them out and make their own contributions. I try to provoke contributions. I generally appreciate the efforts of the Wikipedia Gestapo who enforce the rules and make my work better. Yes, that was every one of Earl's publications. In response to having an item completely deleted for lack of sufficient references, I wanted to see what would happen if I did it and I got an answer. The first Earl article was a stub hoping that some of his students would rise to the call because I was not all that interested. They did not. I am also trying to get Maurice Brookhart to improve his own article, but he is not into computers. My new article on the A. I DuPont Hospital has generated no response from them though they were up at one point in the past and removed because the writer was doing an advert for the hospital. Shell Emoryville is working pretty well as is Mound Laboratory. I think my piece on Frolic Weymouth is pretty good. Littelinfo ( talk) 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hahahah...sorry! No, I was just checking some preparations on Wikipedia, but I thought they were lacking in information... so I tried to find more about them in another source, 1963 Brauer wasn't so good as 2005 Patnaik, i didn't looked it up on Vogel or Kirk-Othmer. BTW, why "obscure"? Gecg 01:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not vandalism unless it's malicious. Yeah, I changed the spelling, sorry, my mistake. See quote below from official Wikipedia policy:
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page. ... Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
It would perhaps be in... hem hem... someone's best interest to put on their glasses and read those last two sentences again. We must carefully consider edits before we mislabel them as vandalism, right? We wouldn't want to harm anyone, would we? Somebody needs to apologise to... hem hem... somebody else for harming his reputation. Being accused publicly of vandalism like that makes people inclined to fast and wrong judgements.
-- Nmatavka ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot. After seeing the recent edits to the clothianidin page, I decided to take the first step in removing the (biased, IMO) presentation of current events from it. For starters, I've posted a proposed article on the 2008 incident in Germany in my sandbox and would appreciate comments from you or anyone else with a NPOV you care to share it with. If you all are fine with it, I'll make it live then proceed as I described on the clothianidin talk page. Let me know what you think. Cheers -- USEPA James ( talk) 17:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the feedback. I reviewed my edit and I believe you are correct and I removed the parts you mentioned. I'd rather you write directly at the articles in the future. Best, Gandy Gandydancer ( talk) 00:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
New article. Would you mind taking a look? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 06:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This edit summary is absolutely unacceptable. You may be blocked for this. I have seen other comments on your talk page (like [5]), and you need to stop - comment on the content and not the contributor. I suggest you review WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. Your edit is disputed at Talk:Coordination complex. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
In summary, as a disinterested onlooker, you're both somewhat out of order, and both of you could play more nicely. It's not worth this drama. Jasper, don't delete unsourced non-BLP info without asking for a cite politely. Smokefoot, re-add such deletions WITH a cite, at least the first time, without saying anything TOO irritating. Finally: Jasper Deng, if you're going to act like this, you'll never make it to administrator. Not that I see why anybody would want to be one. S B H arris 18:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. First of all thank you for your advice. I'm not totally new wikipedian, but my contribution is mostly on polish wikipedia. The rules are a bit different in those two language versions of wiki. What I like most about this encyclopedia is that many specialists write articles in areas in which they are experts. This is why sometimes they need add a sources/citations of their own papers/articles. I think that this is right and even desirable. Such approach ensures the correctness of the content of articles. By the way, I have a question: Should I respond on my or your discussion page? Finally, I would like to apologize for the language errors if I made. My English is not perfect. Regards -- Danielchemik ( talk) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
What criteria are there for assessing the notability of a chemical?For example, is francium chloride notable enough to deserve an article?-- MagnInd ( talk) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot, Sorry for putting this in your "inbox" again. Thank you for your comment. I might have been mislead by the primary references that had already been given in this article. Nevertheless, I think the line I added will be of wide general appeal. Specifically, the [4+1] cycloaddition between isocyanides and tetrazines is a reaction that has been known for decades and it is one that is quite specific to isocyanides. Recently, the reaction was used to convert isocyanides into carbonyls and also in click-chemistry. Thus as a PhD level chemist I believe that my addition not only serves as a good example in the isocyanide reactions section but also provides cutting-edge knowledge. Maybe the addition that I had made could be improved by adding a secondary reference (e.g. [1])? It would be a shame not to include this important information, but I can of course understand your point of view. Will you please let me know what you think. This will not only make the WP chemistry section better but also give me guidance for future editing efforts. Many thanks -- Chembio1000 ( talk) 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Concur that the pages cyanide and cyanide poisoning are mature. That does not change the fact that some of the information is incorrect and misleading. I was not aware there is a policy that involves the talk page. I will use the talk page from now on. Thank you for your courteous response.
I have a great deal of personal experience from chronic workplace cyanide poisoning that required considerable research, legal assistance, and medical treatment. Wikepedia is one of the information sources used by my former employer to point out that cyanide exposure is not a serious safety concern. The information provided by wikepedia should be somewhat credible and not misleading.
I hope this finds everyone well. Best regards. Nanoatzin ( talk) 03:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We have to keep article history, which is why pages are almost never moved by copy/pasting. We've got many admins at WP:CHEM, ask anyone to move over redirect when needed. Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
[6] Not just oxide, but alloys too (e.g. [7]). I have no time right now to fix that, but you are welcome ;-) Materialscientist ( talk) 12:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot, I am currently working on the expansion of the deWP article about metal carbonyls. I have already used your photo of the diiron nonacarbonyl in the article. I noticed that you placed a lot of metal carbonyl drawings on Commons and I wonder if you have by chance any more photos of metal carbonyls crystals or drawings like the metal-CO-bonding (like here? I would like to use them to illustrate the article. Please let me know, thank you. Regards Linksfuss ( talk) 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand why you removed the discussion section on it but there were still two important points in there that have not been addressed but need to be:
1) The LD50 in all MSDS sheets and reputable sources (including the one the wikipedia article currently cites (reference 4)) should be 0.57g/kg (As based on the rat toxicity). The current 0.9g/kg listed on the wikipedia page is incorrect and has no data to support it including the reference it cites which clearly says otherwise. To not change this is to knowingly lie.
2) If one reads the official MSDS (or the reproduced one currently linked from the Wikipedia page as reference 4) it is pretty clear that very little is known about the majority of the toxicity, health, or safety effects of this compound. This is more or less openly stated in the MSDS sheet and all other official literature regarding the compounds handling. The wikipedia article does not reflect this in its toxcity section but should, as it is these are the currently accepted truths on this compound as reflected in the actual literature and documents including those already referenced by the wikipedia page. 149.155.2.228 ( talk) 12:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
So you didn't like my history of lubricants! I mean, it was awesome! :) Hey, you need to start somewhere. Don't you like Romans?!
Ha ha, anyway. I reread the categorization I made for oil additives, and I think that the way I broke down the different types of additives will greatly enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. It is one of those edits that makes people say, "Ah, ha, so this is not an arbitrary list of junk written by kids. This is an article that explains the topic in a logical way." It really shows you how a simple re-organization can make more sense than a rewrite if you do it right. Strangely enough, the list follows a rough chronological order for the oil industry, or at least an order that goes from the simple to the complex. E.g. soot control is a hot topic of the 2000s, while VI improvers and "viscocity breakdown" are more of the 1980s. The other thing to note is that the detailed and exhaustive list in this section is supposed to contrast the random additives found in Dura Lube, which are more marketing and less functional in their properties. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 05:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Smokefoot! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Smokefoot. I've been working on my edits for the Kumada coupling article and currently have a rough draft. I definitely plan on expanding some aspects (more figures, more detailed scope). If you'd like to read it to make sure it is appropriate for Wikipedia, you can find it in my sandbox. I would definitely appreciate any feedback! Bear in mind, that this is for a class assignment, but I do want to make the article as useful and relevant as possible. Thanks! Jonathan.Raybin ( talk) 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Do you know any more applications for DOTA-lanthanide-complexes besides gadoteric acid? None of the other ions mentioned in DOTA (chelator) is a lanthanid. Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 16:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
It is nice, that you tried to clean up the article on Lithopone. But don't you think you pruned too much information? Like the list of the physical properties? 217.115.249.152 ( talk) 09:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:H4T.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe de:Schwefeltetrachlorid has some more references.-- Makecat ( talk) 10:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, you did not transclude this article in the Articles for deletion log page when you nominated it for deletion, as required in step 3 of the subsection "How to nominate a single page for deletion” on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page. Another user has performed this step for you to complete the process. In the future, please follow all of the required steps when nominating an article for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 ( talk) at 18:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
Saw several great edits and I saw you are the real deal as a chemist. The article is still evolving but getting there. I am going to fact-check the entire thing in a few days. Several places needing a ref will get fixed concurrently with that 'brary dive. And some content tweaks or better explanations to laymen (from learning the topic better).
1. What is hypoconjugation of fluoride? I googled that (even google scholar) and came up empty. Kept asking me for hyperconjugation, but even that seemed different from your point. Could we just say formation of bifluoride? (Of course that still leaves the question why it does not form in glacial acetic acid. Like what IS the role of the water?) Can you explain whole thing to me (in little words) or maybe send me off to a good ref? I do have Cotton Adv Inorg at home (not there, right now). I know the ref I had before was a website, but it was actually written by the author of a college chemistry textbook so I figured it would be decent...but you don't like it?
1.5 "They are generally very strong and are almost always solvated, containing protonated ether or protonated water." I'm almost there on this one, but could you explain it a bit more on this talk page? How does what you mention here compare to H2SO4 or HNO3 or the like? Are they solvated in water (what is "solvate")?
2. ECF is a good add. I did not know of it. Is it the method used for production of Freon and Teflon (precursors) and PFOS and the like? Is it basically the whole organofluorine industry or just perfluoroalkanes?
3. "Illustrative of the complications in this area, fluoroantimonic acid consists, depending on the method of isolation..." I feel like we've added a complication (nature of the molecule versus the formula unit) and taken away the explanation of "why it is so strong". And not sufficiently explained the complication added. I know the superacids are a little funky and I'm not trying to be wrong, but I'm worried that we are not really supplying most important info (why strong) and replacing with something that only an in the field chemist would understand. Can you explain the point a little more on this talk page (will help me get the "so what" of the complications)? Maybe if we are glossing over too much on the superacids to the point of being wrong, we should add a few more sentences to explain how they really function. That will take care of your concerns that we are conveying bad info, but also unpackage the topic enough for someone who is a chemical engineer or a doctor or the like to get insights.
4. I am looking for more high level chemical info (structure trends, properties, preparations) on medicinal fluorides. We have a pretty decent section within "Biological roles". I might bring some of that down (perhaps the thing on stabilizing rings). Obviously, I don't want to just duplicate info amongst sections. Am making "Chemistry of the compounds" the place for the more technical chemical discussions. But for instance are peptides fluorinated or just these ring molecule thingies? 2-3 key insights like that and I can build a para and they are high level enough to be giving some overview.
Another option could be just to cut the 2-3 drugs (not sure if we count the ether) out of the ribbon of organofluorines picture and move it up to biological roles. Hmm...
5. I am looking for a killer quote about the number of organofluorines. "More than a million documented" or whatever. The exact number is not important, but I want to use it in a topic sentence at the start of the section and just give the non-chemist reader some feel for the breadth of the topic. "Diverse" is too handwavey. I think a chemist groks that there would be a gazillion of them, since there are...a gazillion organic compounds, but I want something to help the layman.
TCO ( talk) 16:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
P.s. I may tweak a few minor things you wrote (e.g. center versus centre).
Thank you for kind words. That gives me enough to go on and I can get these things upgraded (info on prep methods particularly nice new info). Awesome.
I'll look at some books on the superacid strongness and HF weakness and see if there is an easy way to explain something insightful and also technically correct. If not, we may just simplify by omitting the rationales or put in a note or something. (Leaving current version for now.)
I'll tighten "Chemical properties" at the front. Want that accessible and small, agreed. Has been shaved some already. One option is to move some of the einsteinium details (binary compounds) down to "Compounds" section at the end. Just say all except helium and neon at top and mention the violence of the reactions. [Think I will do that.]
"Compounds" is pretty big, agreed. Is why I put at the end ("penalty box") and sectioned a lot. (Along with being more technical and less of a natural narrative.) We could end up spinning that out. I would prefer to wait until close to the end of the process to make that call.