User talk:Smokefoot

I've reverted your change to Iron(III) acetate - problems:

• Removed any mention of the test for iron - this is bog standard textbook chemistry.
• "A compound of the formula Fe(OAc)3 has been claimed" ? this reads like weasel words - I see little reason to doubt this since molecular weight and other data was obtained?
• The image - as far as I can tell the editor has simply replicated a standar chemical proceedure - hardly WP:OR - is there any reason to doubt the validity of this image?

Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the reference for the basic acetate structure "Crystal-Molecular Structure and Magnetic Properties of Cr3(CH3.COO)6OCl.5H2O" seems to be an error, though I haven't read it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also used another reference http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112340941/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 - this too is chromium? Isn't there an original paper for the iron compound??Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. And you make some good points. Here are some comments on your points:

• "bog standard textbook chemistry." not sure what "bog" is. Doubtless there are hundreds of tests for Fe, but you are welcome to reinstate this aspect. It was difficult for me to envision the reddish-brown colour of basic Fe acetate being usefully distinctive. See qualitative inorganic analysis.
• "... Fe(OAc)3 has been claimed" and weasel words. Guitly as charged. Claims for Fe(OAc)3 have been published in minor (most would say low-quality) journals, and the articles present no good evidence. Also I checked: few (maybe 5 articles) reference these articles except the original authors. So the work is not recognized. If an authentic Fe(OAc)3 were described, the announcement would be rather big news, since new simple compositions of Fe are noteworthy. Sometimes inexperienced editors give WP:undue weight to strange things. But in any case, maybe it is useful for readers to see that simple ferric acetate (no oxo's etc) is actually not well characterized. I figured that it was more diplomatic to say "claimed" than "published in a garbage journal catering to faculty desperate to inflate their publication lists in English-speaking journals."
• MW data on inorg cmpd??? It would not be a molecule, right? So probably not appropriate. A little complicated if you dont have experience.
• image removal. It is OR in my opinion, and I am suspicious of amateur chemists inserting results in WP, but it is not a big deal for me, I have reinstated, reluctantly.
• Cr vs Fe. Cr(III) and Fe(III) often form isomorphous materials, so many of the reports are entitled with Cr. I didnt want to weigh down the article with a lot of primary references (WP policy), so these refs are some historically important ones.

Also Manganese(III) acetate - there's a similar problem here as there was at ferric acetate - the article only describes the 'anhydrous' basic acetate (it's often the dihydrate that is used in one electron oxidations in synthesis) - the dihydrate has a different structure obviously - as I remember it's a chinese lantern type with a Mn-Mn bond, but I can't check that right now.

You can read more about this and get some references from Manganese(III) Acetate: A Versatile Reagent in Organic Chemistry Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a quite well known Mn12O12(O2CCH3)16 eg [3] also try http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Mn12+acetate&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= but I don't know much about this one.Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CAS is [993-02-2] I think. see [993-02-2&source=bl&ots=xfLJfFIiyB&sig=8q3kyYvtFniS9qQE2uNLRhVyYo0&hl=en&ei=ZfUaTJu7CIPw0wTwpYCYCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%5B993-02-2&f=false ?? or http://lb.chemie.uni-hamburg.de/static/RN/1_26833-56-7%20...%2027104-48-9.php?content=589/bQz19gPAM ?? Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for helping with this article.

• anhydrous' basic acetate vs hydrate. I dont know right now how these materials differ. My guess is that the molecular structures are similar. First row M(III) species do not typically adopt the chinese lantern structure.
• Re Mn12O12(O2CCH3)16. There are many such species, but the article is about Mn(III), you might want to mention it. More useful would be that you turn your attention to single-molecule magnet, which needs help.

--Smokefoot (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please I don't want to argue about this - it's clear that the basic acetate is better characterised.

• Not in the dictionary of compounds - along with many other compounds - I don't see the issue - the aim was to complete the coverage of iron acetates.
• Yes -the structure can be a discrete molecular complex (seems likely to me) - happens all the time - eg the basic acetate with one Fe3 replaced by Fe2 would be a non charged complex - such things exist, and its mol. weight calculated by standard methods.
• 'bog standard' means it's mentioned in low level text books and has been known for a long time.

I've added back in the references for the non-basic acetate, renamed the section heading, and put it below the well known basic acetate. Also I changed details of the preparation, which were wrong - the basic acetate isn't formed in acetic acid, but in the presence of acetate ions. In fact the non-basic acetate seems to be stable in acetic acid even on boiling.

The chromium structure reference may be no good - that is synthesis unless the article gives the structure for the iron compound.

It is a bit impolite to describe a respectable journal that is reporting standard basic research as low quality.

I don't know where you got published in a garbage journal catering to faculty desperate to inflate their publication lists in English-speaking journals I don't know if it was a joke - you can see a list of recent articles here [4] or the editorial board here [5] Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your remarkably persistent efforts. Comments:

• "Please I don't want to argue about this - it's clear that the basic acetate is better characterised." Better characterized? That understatement is the basis of my editing efforts in this and related cases.

• "Not in the dictionary of compounds" you are referring to what?

In your edit summary [6] Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yes -the structure can be a discrete ... happens all the time - eg the basic acetate with one Fe3 replaced by Fe2 would be a non charged complex - such things exist, and its mol. weight calculated by standard methods." What happens all the time? We are discussing the credibility of Fe(OAc)3 as described in Transition Metal Chem. Remind me of your understanding of a "standard method" that would be applied to the determination MW of Fe(OAc)3?

Melting point depression is one method you could use.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The chromium structure reference may be no good..." The Nature paper describes the isomorphous pair. I will mention this in a revision.
• "I've added back in the references for the non-basic acetate" I think that I had the reference more appropriately written in my version, but I will recheck later.

No, you had removed one of the references - there were two, you only left the reference to the synthesis by the silver method.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is a bit impolite to describe a respectable journal ... as low quality." Transition Metal Chemistry is a low impact journal, very low. The risk with purported politeness, at least in this case, is the propagation of inaccurate information.

Low impact does not equal incorrect - you wrote "published in a garbage journal catering to faculty desperate to inflate their publication lists in English-speaking journals" - that is uncacceptably impolite.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to themes where we seem to most disagree, the quality of the data for "Fe(OAc)3":

• You recommend melting point depression as a method of identification for Fe(OAc)3?? A telling suggestion. Lots of problems with this approach, the first of which is the technique requires an authentic sample, which is the very point we are debating. Melting point depression was popular several decades ago, but rarely for coordination compounds, which tend to decompose before they melt. You might consult the chemboxes of any number of coordination compounds. BTW, I have no problem with your filing a complaint against me, it's a basic right around here.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The compound doesn't need to melt in a melting point depression experiment which is used to determine molecular weight - it's mixed with another solid as a smaller fraction and the meting point of the other (now impure) solid found - this experiment can be carried out below the decomposition temperature of the complex.

You asked for an example of a method to determine the molecular weight of the compound - I gave you one - I didn't "recommend melting point depression as a method of identification for Fe(OAc)3" - I just gave you an example.

You seem to be suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about. - what exactly do you mean by "A telling suggestion" - you should respond to the complaint. I would say that a response from you would be appropiate seeing as you have attempted to discredit the references I gave, the journal they are from, and my own understanding. It seems like it is you that doesn't understand the method of using melting point depression to determine molecular weight. Given that the editors of 'transition metal chemistry' are from good universities, and the papers as far as I can tell make no extravagant claims I'd like to know what the basis is of your disbelief. 87.102.32.15 (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this discussion, and the remarks on WP:WQA. Sf5xeplus/87.102.32.15, I think the problem lies in what you actually reference to. It is very dangerous to attribute the synthesis of a compound to a paper. The information is peer reviewed, but it becomes actually really reviewed when there is follow up on it. In the spirit of WP:AGF, we assume that everything there is correct, but there are numerous examples of such papers, where later research shows that, while theorie or experimental possibilities maybe at the time of the publication were pointing to the conclusions in the paper, later research has shown that actually completely different compounds were actually made. Still, the information is sometimes taken over even in encyclopedia's, review articles, etc. etc. I am afraid that this is one of those primary sources (and indeed from a journal with a relatively low impact factor; note that even if it is from a journal with a high impact factor, we would need to take care with that), and to base large parts of text, or even whole articles, on that, should not be done. I think that is what Smokefoot here means, be careful with this type of information, especially since it is in a journal with a low impact factor. That as such does not immediately say something about the correctness of the information, but we have to be sceptical here. I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the claim for Fe(OAc)3 is based on a pair of primary sources, regardless of the impact level of these journals, because WP prefers secondary sources. The Transition Metal Chem or Thermochem Acta appeared 35 years ago and are still not cited in any secondary sources (e.g. Encyclopedia or Inorganic Chemistry, any textbooks). Thus, I recommend that (1) we return to the phrasing that Fe(OAc)3 has been claimed and (2) the results of these primary sources not be discussed in detail, i.e. no equations (otherwise we are giving undue weight to unverified claims). I is worthwhile mentioning the claim for Fe(OAc)3, since the thin/controversial supporting evidence usefully informs readers about the rarity of certain otherwise simple compositions.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok I've done that: removed the equations, tried to compact the description of the two claimed methods as much as possible, and added "claimed"

[7]

I did not think that the references were primary sources would be an issue here since the additional infomation was never the basis of the article. Nevertheless I accept the issues involved.87.102.32.15 (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your sarcastic and condesending tone, nor do I appreciate your opinionated degradation of a perfectly normal and reliable journal. Reverting good faith edits that are well referenced and contribute to the article is not collaborative at all. Please do not edit like that - it is very counterproductive.

You can comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Smokefoot.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I saw your note at the complaint site. I confess to skepticism about identifying/verifying new inorganic compound by melting point depression. But we are not here to characterize compounds but to write an article within the constraints of WP guidelines. Let's both try to establish our good faith by following a senior administrator's advice about not emphasizing results in primary references. See above. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother editing the article - but just leave you a note to mention that you've removed mention of the old Fe3+/acetate test - which I thought was notable.

You've made the article more professional though, but I think you should read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles with an open mind with respect to this - without any criticism of your contributions intended - just that you might put off some other editors. (I have a similar problem with articles I feel expert in too) Your actions are quite unilateral with respect to any content in the article..

By the way - good call on creating Thioindigo - definately a notable compound. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I really appreciate the advice and I realize that many of my actions can be rather unilateral. My editing style depends a lot on input of the sort you have provided. even when I can seem deaf, I cam listening or trying to. About the indicator test: good eye. I did seriously ponder this factoid, and re-re-read the dictionary entry. To my reading, the entry does not really say that the formation of the red acetate is a test for Fe(III), just that Fe(III) engages in this reaction. The wiki-article on qualitative inorganic analysis for example does not mention acetate as a test for Fe(III). As you probably know, the usual tests are things like SCN-, generation of Prussian Blue, NO, and possibly phenanthroline. I look forward to working with you again. Best wishes.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's commonly cited as a test for acetate rather than iron3. Nowadays it's more of an educational example - ie it demonstrates the difference between acetate esters and acetate ions. I think it used to be used in metal alloy/ore analysis (when metal analysis was wet chemistry) - ie to separate out iron from other transition metals.. It's mentioned in "The Analysis of Steel-Works Materials" ,Harry Brearley (year 190x) or "Quantitative Analysis for Mining Engineers" , Edmund Howd Miller(you might be able to see it on google books) - only Al really interferes, copper very slightly, Ni,Co,Mn remain in solution. I'm not sure what policy is on knowledge that gives historical perspective.

The mining book says (p.62) :

(Section heading) Notes on the "Basic Acetate" separation
"This is one of the oldest and most important separations in analytical chemistry ... It serves for the separation of .. Iron, Aluminium and Chromium from .. Manganese, Zinc, Cobalt and Nickel"

That book is now out of copyright and it was an old reaction then!

I've been here a while (longer than my edit history suggests) - keep forgetting passwords - this is my fourth user account.. I know that a lot of work here can be undoing or trying to fix good faith edits by enthusiastic (or ax grinding) editors who don't really have enough experience or education (yet) to edit on their own without making a mess.. I can get seriously grumpy or just plain rude in my edit summaries.

Ever get the feeling you're the last sane editor on the project ?

KUTGW.77.86.115.161 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your finding the qual test is impressive indeed. Indeed Wikipedia editing can be challenging, but you seem up to it. We all have to keep a check on one's views and insinuations, me too for sure. A lot of conflicts arise from the use primary references, as we saw. There are many articles where your knowledge would be helpful. Thanks for your help. Good luck keeping track of your login info. Cheers, I will be inactive for a while now - I am more of a weekend worker, sort of a hobby.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

From what I can tell, you removed essentially in toto all the information I edited in about iodolipids. I'm not upset about this or anything - the source I used was itself pretty speculative and light on a lot of information (looks like a lot of preliminary animal work with some possible human stuff in there too). I'm wondering about iodolipids in general - the account that added the original text of that section (Sebastiano venturi (talk · contribs)) added it to many areas on wikipedia, and over the past month I've been reviewing and generally culling it down (see iodine in biology for a rather extreme example). If you have any in-depth knowledge about this subject, I'd welcome a review and would be willing to gather up the relevant diffs for you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note (and for your diligence. In general I am wary of primary references and vanity citations, since I suspect most such contributions are not motivated by service to the readers. So I took out the whole section, following your clues. The references were primary and seemed narrow. We should probably track down and remove everything by this editor on this particular theme, since as you implied, these edits were part of a spamming operation. I am not a super-expert on bio-iodine, but reading in the area is a hobby for me and I have never encountered iodolipids. Their existence would not surprise me, but I do not think that they are sufficiently notable for an overview on iodine. Such are not mentioned in "What’s new in enzymatic halogenations" by Galonic Fujimori and Walsh Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 2007 nor in Gribble's "Naturally Occurring Organohalogen Compounds" Acc. Chem. Res., 1998, pp 141: "Apart from the iodine-containing thyroid hormones, organoiodine is rarely found in nature and fewer than 100 examples are known"--Smokefoot (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the version I ended up with yesterday, I removed basically everything that Venturi added but my replacement citation (to a book) was independent and reviewed by me. The book is recent (2009) but I'm not sure if I'm reading the introduction of a primary paper or a full literature review and summary (my google books preview cuts off the last two pages of the chapter). The source seemded to back that they exist but was a bit too technical for me to be sure I was summarizing correctly. Based on that source however, it looks like Venturi's conclusions and citations are extremely self-serving and therefore not a good inclusion - iodine may be an important antioxidant but it's not seen that way right now. Frankly, if it's citing Medical Hypotheses as a source, wikipedia is almost certainly not the venue to post information about it. I've removed all the references I could find, after a bit of digging to turn up as many pages as possible. I would suspect this of being preliminary research rather than outright quackery, but still too preliminary for a detailed review, and too soon for it to appear in a top-level article. There may be a place for the information somewhere on wikipedia, but I'll be damned if I can tell where (perhaps you might know) and shouldn't include that much speculative detail. All that to say I think I've cleaned everything up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, From Sebastiano Venturi, regarding to "IODOLIPIDS": http://www.findia.net/query.html?ns=1&query=iodolipids# —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastiano venturi (talk • contribs) 06:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your condescending tone... (partial quote from above)

I don't know if you're just a user, abuser, appointed poobah of Wikipedia, or self-appointed (or self-important) person on here. Now, as to the stub note you sent me, which I didn't like:

Stubs are a subjective thing, and you know that. What one sees as a stub, others may not. There are some out there now that appear not to be, but unless someone tags "United States" as a stub, one should generally defer.

These compound and enzyme stubs I have dealt with, if you would look, were generally stubbed by someone else. They are proper stubs. Many mention that the compound's/enzyme's/whatever's full potential has yet to be discovered, or their structure fully mapped. That makes the article necessarily incomplete, and the information contained in it only partial.

I have read and re-read the User Guide on what a stub is. I am comfortable with my knowledge. Maybe you're a chemist or a molecular biologist, I don't know. And I don't really care. If you are, then you're qualified to reverse any stub findings in your field(s) of Einsteinian genius which you see as inappropriate. Knock yourself out.

As for why I do what I do, it is what I choose to do. It's a lot of effort re-writing some article about a town in India that is understandable but obviously written by some halfwit Dravidian with limited command of English. Stubs exist, amigo, so that the next person who knows a good bit about whatever can do the editing. Someone bothered to write the code for the stub archive, mind you; to create the {{ }} mark-up; to compose a list of stub categories; to continuously update same; and to incorporate designs for them. Why you see stubs as unimportant, I don't know. And again, I don't care. This is my niche. Plus, what's wrong with a stub? It's an eyecatcher for anyone with more knowledge than you or me on an article. Stubs are intended, and they'll be here for a long time.

To assuage your nightmarish phobia of extra stubs over-running you and your computer, however, know this: I go through the articles once, by alpha. I don't go back. If you revert one I have stubbed, I won't re-revert it. I do stubbing that way and from the page listing stub articles. Thus, I never miss one.

You did see the note of praise for my work, above yours and Tweedle Dee's, right? Someone appreciates what I do, which is to make Wikipedia a little better than how I found it. This is what I like to do, and I will -not- stop doing so. If you're so self-righteous as to think you have it all and that you thus know I am a bane to this site, you do what you have to do. In the meantime, "stubbed it" is my thing. Funny you have naught better to do than take issue with this aspect of Wikipedia when -you- could be marking articles for deletion or the like yourself.

Oh, and the "crap" that is stubbing? The bot can only put "stub", not "kind of stub". That's for a human to do. And I li-i-i-i-i-ke doing it. Happy gathering of knowledge, whoever you are...--Cesium 133 (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about a formula in this section of this article. The formula is:

[[Cr(O<sub>2</sub>)<sub>4</sub>]<sup>2-</sup>

This keeps showing up in an error list as having unbalanced square brackets. They look unbalanced to me, but I don't know if that's acceptable in whatever notation this is, or how it should be fixed if it's indeed unbalanced. Could you take a look and let me know what you think? You can reply here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for the note. Fixed it. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 May 2010 you replaced the redirect by a short article. There was already an article on Gentian violet – with a picture of the same dye, and another article on Methyl violet, a mixture that contains crystal violet. There were thus 3 articles on very similar topics. I’ve been bold and replaced Gentian violet with a redirect to Crystal violet and merged the two articles. What appeared as a simple task has taken me much more effort than I intended: I wasn’t happy with the Gentian violet article and I was curious as to why there were two names for the same dye. My knowledge of chemistry is rather slight so I would be pleased if you could take a look at the chemical aspects of my revised article. I still need to revamp the medical use section and explain why crystal violet has fallen out of fashion but I won’t have much time to edit the article over the next couple of weeks. many thanks Aa77zz (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot... I noticed that you tagged isomerisation for merger so I have similarly tagged isomer and created a discussion at talk:Isomerisation#Merger Proposal. I think this is the correct procedure, please correct me if I am wrong. I was wondering if you also might explain your reasoning for the proposal. I have been thinking about these two articles in the last few days but feel that you as proposer should have the first say on what you are suggesting before I add my thoughts. Regards, EdChem (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well I didnt put the notice on isomer because isomerization is small and would evaporate as it got folded into the master article. So the idea was make the merge unidirectional vs a symmetric merge (WP does not have a term for such a process, I dont think). BTW your ferrocene example from Sydney U was certainly one I hadnt ever seen (but it should be under linkage isomer, I think). --Smokefoot (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I thought tagging isomer was procedurally appropriate, and I hope it will bring in more comments. Even before you tagged isomerisation I was thinking it needed a lot of work, but I'm wondering whether I should hold off given the risk it will be lost in folding isomerisation into isomer. As for the linkage isomer example, I don't think it belongs as prominently in isomerisation as it is presently. I had planned to move it in the re-write. FYI, you may be interested to know that decaphenylferrocene has been investigated and reported on by others as well. Bond's group at Monash looked at the electrochemistry of the linkage isomer (Organometallics (1999), v18 p642-649) and decaphenylferrocene has also been studied by Schumann's group in Berlin (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. (1994), v33 p1731-1733). Regards, EdChem (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I responded to the isomer issue on that talk page. There are many articles on related topics. V8rik is very experienced and will have useful advice. On the decaphenylferrocene thing in isomerization, the example might be ultra-esoteric but at least the conversion will remind readers about the diversity of chemistry, at least those few readers who understand the associated chemistry. Thanks for telling me about it, I would never have predicted that process.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NP... on the linkage isomer, my understanding is that the researchers were looking for decaphenylferrocene and were very surprised to get the linkage isomer and took some while to figure out what they had. As you suggest, it's a nice reminder of how our expectations as chemists can turn out to be quite incorrect. Regards, EdChem (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last two days I've done a complete re-write and expansion of the Hans Freeman article. I was wondering if it's less gush-y? Suggestions / comments welcome. EdChem (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for asking. I am not in charge of this asylum and feel slightly uncomfortable as a consultant. But since you asked, the article looks fine to me. It is especially difficult to write objectively about topics/people about which one feels strongly.

BTW, for hard-core Australians, we need one on the person that inspired Ronald Nyholm, Burrows. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look and offerring your thoughts. I agreed that my first expansion was overly gush-y, so I wanted your view of this new re-write. As for missing articles, I am sometimes shocked at what is still missing - a couple of says ago I found we had no article on Ed Solomon and we are still missing Le Fevre. EdChem (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Writing a biography article is definitely harder than a chemistry article.

Well, as far as the readership is concerned, biographies are far less relevant than technical content on pathways and components in everyday life. Here is what folks are seeking: http://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/view.php?proj=chem&month=Jul10&limit=200&offset=0 --Smokefoot (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's an interesting / useful link. EdChem (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_14#Trichloroazane as did you but I added new information that I expect would make you want to modify your position. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines: Personal talk page cleanup: "... Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, ..."

(PS. You are permitted to delete this comment)

ThomasYun (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smokefoot I am sorry to hear that you don't like my writing..I pulled the brake like you suggested and now wait for your specific criticisms.Cleanthis (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)?Cleanthis (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped to work on my "student project" over the weekend but it is obvious by now that it will have to wait,again.Although I have now a basic understanding of what is going on here, I still have to wait for your response regarding your initial assessment of my contribution. You have written yourself that you don't mind your English been polished and your chemistry corrected and neither do I.195.134.98.204 (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I got logged out, for some reasonCleanthis (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Smokefoot,
Thanks for the explanations and the advice.You might be wrong in assuming that I study Org chem but this is beside the point.I would also like to thank you for setting things straight in the article.It now stands very much improved ,I think,relative to what it was before you edit it.The fact is that it is not my article.I came across it almost by accident a couple of months ago.It looked so weak and abandoned that I thought I would get involved with WP and help in cases like that.You may say that I adopted it.My activity in the article got me into discussions first with DMacks administrator then with you.The message that came through was that I am politely tolerated here while I mess up "good stuff".Did you check edithistory?I am inclined to believe you when you say that my editing skills are below WP standard but I am willing (with pleasure) to argue about Chemistry and its concepts.Having said that ,there are some points I would like to make.

I jumped to incorrect conclusions, apparently I should have concluded the opposite, that you improve what you exhumed. We have lots of drive-by editors are determined to show-off their half-baked understanding of chemistry. Also the organic articles have been cursed with mediocre edits by students forced to write on themes in order to learn the subject vs improve the article. And one characteristic of such cases is long edits, so alarms went off. Apparently too loudly.

-You said that WP is not for organic chemists only and I agree with you, but what about the aldol reaction article and many others like it?Is it not 100% for the Organic chemist?How much tangential information does it contain and who is there to compress it or split it?

The aldol reaction applies exclusively to organic chemistry, you need C-O units to do this reaction, right? Conformation is a broad term that applies to the shapes of molecules in general. The article is written as if butane cyclohexyl bromide are default molecules and representative of the scope of conformation, which is narrow. I confess to being an inorganic enthusiast.

-You said the conformer populations part is not central to the subject and I think the same but it was already there in the original version. I was about to remove the huge formula and shrink the rest to a single paragraph when you stepped in and stopped me.

My incorrect assumption, apologies. We could include the Boltzman population analysis (it is a nice set of curves though) in many articles. Oh well

-I was also going to change the content of the first section about types of conformational isomerism because it is totally irrelevant and misleading (of all structures ,steroids as example of conformer!)

go for it. I might have barked, but I am hardly in control... No one is.

-The last large section on the conformer libraries, how informative do you thing it is relative to its extent ? Neither of you two last editors (DMacs and your self I mean) seems to have paid any attention to that material.

I would cut it, or compress it to one sentence. The section is almost surely a vanity addition, a common and highly unfortunate aspect of our open system. On one hand we have "any one can edit" which is supposedly wonderful, but then we get that kind of ultra-narrow section promoting some niche theme. Some editors however resent the deletion of content (not me).

-Finally there are some problems in your text (probably stray text from your pruning operations )which I could take care of along with the other improvements I mentioned. Do you think I can do this without setting of the alarms again?

I plead guilty again, highly imperfect copy editor.

Cleanthis (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice talking to you, and thank you for your comments. I am looking forward to working with you again. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful guidance. I have read the suggested sections, and will be more careful in the future. I have always tried to add relevant and accurate information. Rbaselt (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there...I wanted to contact you directly...for some reason someone keeps posting libelous material on my Wikipedia page (Jim Wilkinson, US Politician)...this information is related to the Pat Tillman incident...it is critical that you know that I didn't work in the White House when this incident happened...I had nothing to do with it and the US Congress has investigated this and there is no reference to me at all with this matter...The Congressional report does not mention me at all in relation to this incident so I don't see why this keeps coming up, except that someone continues to write libelous material about me on the page...The reference keeps coming up from a recent book by Jon Krakauer..in his book he also notes that I didn't work at the White House when the Tillman incident happened, and he notes I had nothing to do with it...yet someone keeps posting on my page that I was involved in this incident...it is factually wrong and libelous to me...and it is inconsistent with the actual text in the book...can you help me correct this? I am a former military officer who has served my country and I just want to make sure that this page is accurate...no one is angrier than me about how the Pat Tillman incident was handled...but I had nothing to do with it and didn't work there then...thanks so much for your consideration...Jim Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.34.62 (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the deletion again but revised it after checking the references. A Jim Wilkinson does figure pretty visibly in the book about Tillman. The book to me is pretty unflattering about Wilkinson (religious zealot who wrapped himself in the US flag and misled many people). The congressional report discusses what appear to be interviews with him. Maybe there are two Jim Wilkinsons, in which case the matter needs to be clarified. The way to do this is on the "talk page" for Talk:Jim Wilkinson (U.S. politician).

Some advice if you think that the article is seriously flawed:

• you want to contact an "administrator", folks empowered to control misinformation, if you think that is happening. The page Jim Wilkinson (U.S. politician) is not very active, but Pat Tillman is more lively, so I will leave a note at Talk:Pat Tillman pointing out your concern.
• Within Wikipedia no one really cares who an editor says they are (difficult to swallow, but any of us could be a 9-year old kid in Timbuktu). It is convenient to register (use a fake name or whatever - does not matter).
• Recall that Wikipedia is not a US program, so no one really cares about your claims, good or bad. Editors just care about the editing quality. Of course editors like relations to be cordial, because such behavior expedites editing.

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added info on the site that is sourced to the same congressional report you source...Wilkinson denies being the source for the story in this report...the actual quotes from the report are included in there and it is sourced to the same report you source...everything that I have added is sourced...can you please stop changing my edits? In the book edit, you took out my word "alleged"...the way it is written is is stated as fact, despite Wilkinson having denied this under oath and despite this denial being in the congressional report...can you please put the word "alleges" back in there...it is important because the way you have it written now it states it as fact...please help me with this...thanks.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have changed your reference to "striking lack of memory." The report DOES NOT say this about Wilkinson...it says it about the whole investigation...I have left your reference in there but fixed it to make it word for word accurate with the report... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on my watchlist because it looks like it needs a cleanup, but I am about to remove it and thought you might be interested. -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, but I checked the net and I saw pictures that KSH was in that arrangement. So maybe I'll do pictures that I'm quite sure of? YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any free software that can be used for 3D molecular modelling? I'd like to try it out (but not on WP yet). Thanks. YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Benjah-bmm27 (talk · contribs), he's the expert for this sort of thing. But KSH is definitely not a molecular species under ordinary conditions. Maybe under some weird low pressure high temperature gas phase conditions, but not the solid powder you can buy. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But no software will teach you the basic facts that you misunderstand - that simple ionic solids adopt polymeric structures. Once you start to master that set of concepts, then your chemical vision is greatly enhanced. Part of the method is is to learn about coordination numbers. And feel free to ask any of us or post a question on the Talk pages of the articles. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:CHEMMOS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing in particular with regard to accepted community standards for depictions of molecules. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my File:Sodium hexachloroplatinate.gif and check if there are any errors, and please post them on my talk page. Thanks. YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 05:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but how should I change it (in a summary, and simpler terms please, I'm not very good in chemistry terms)? YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 06:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my image from cobalt(II) nitrate? I don't see anything wrong with it, the charge is correct, there's nothing wrong with the arrangement. YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 07:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote was naive and even silly. Have you checked the published structure? We do not just guess what these things look like from the name, we check journal articles and we read books. Otherwise you should not be editing these articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smoke,

Good work on introducing a better solubility reference in this edit, but why did you replace the photo of black Ag₂O with one of red Cu₂O?

Cheers,

Ben (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was moving fast, but my impression was that the more spaced out image of the structure was easier to see the bonds vs a pile of spheres. ... Oh I just looked. Something is wrong, I meant to use the image of Cu2O. Yikes,--Smokefoot (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you appreciate it if you moved it back. I am flooded with activity yes, but I don't see how it's OR. We have articles on all sorts of exotic chemistries (iron-carbon bonding for instance), and the interaction between thiol and gold is the strongest of already remarkable metal-thiol bonding (between neutral chemicals!), never mind when sulfide is added as an anion.

It's not OR to mention that when a gold surface is saturated with thiol, that there is an irreversible loss of 'hydrogen' (experimentally found and published -- not OR), to generate thiolate-ish species, yet this does not occur below some threshold. There's a lot of stuff that self-assembled monolayer doesn't cover. This is like trying to merge stuff on ethyl acetate into the carbonyl article. It's ridiculous.

Why removed published material? It's not OR. John Riemann Soong (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have an article on gold chalcogenides, which is on the same topic. We all write some silly things when we are learning, so no big deal. But your draft is childlish and lacks perspective. The best way to undertake an article on a topic where you are interested but still learning is to start with a good textbook or a monograph (see WP:SECONDARY. Not primary sources. The textbook or monograph can guide you, since they are written almost invariably by real experts on a topic.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not really at all the same topic. That article deals with gold in a +1 or +3 oxidation state -- not at all the same chemistry. Stubs have to start somewhere. I was invariably planning on improving it when I wasn't so busy. Can you please offer a real reason for merging an article about a near-covalent bond to an article dealing with ionic compounds? John Riemann Soong (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there SF

Thanks for working on this article. I was thinking that the description should be left in? That it's a white solid? I think it's always nice to give people a feel of what the stuff looks like - whether a blue liquid or a pink gas. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are of course always welcome to correct or edit. I am forgetful editor as you know, and yes I like colors etc for cmpds. I'll put it back. Starting this article was a good idea as was the one on tht. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot thanks for your work on the niobium article! I have one question on the new structure of the article. Some years ago, there was also a discussion on the structure and at the end somebody came up with the statement that normal reader of an article on less common elements would be more interested in the history section or the application than in the chemical and physical properties. For me this sounded reasonable and so I changed the structure of most of the article I worked on to that style. You put the history section second last before biology and precaution. Do you think we have more readers among the physics and chemistry students? As nobody knows who is reading what it is difficult for a definite answer I know. Thanks --Stone (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you answered a question that I have had, abuot the placement of the history section for obscure elements. I had asked at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements about layout, and Nergaal encouraged moving the history to follow the production. The distinction between common and obscure elements was not known to me. So I will move it back. If you see any other where my editing raised questions, please let me know. Nice to hear from you. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the history section was done a long time ago and I am not sure if it holds still. The projects are driven by consensus so if there is a new one we might go for a more uniform look and place it always to the end? --Stone (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just came from an editing spree on Simple English Wikipedia, where I created many articles. I do not have many sources. I use en as a source for simple. I subscribed to SuggestBot and it gave me some articles to work on. What I normally mean by stability is the "instability" section on the NPFA rating, where unstable is easily decomposing or disproportionating or having a violent reaction with another normal chemical compound. I say permanganates are more stable than manganese heptoxide because they do not spontaneously explode. I am saying with chloride and nickel(II) that chloride is oxidized instead of nickel(II). Maybe I should get back to simple and work on their chemical compounds--potassium hydroxide or calcium hydroxide wasn't even there when I came. Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are helpful to the articles, so dont worry about trying to be perfect. And sometimes when chemists try to be too precise such as about "stability", no normal person can understand the language and then the article is not very accessible or very useful. So we need figure this out. Apparently Mn2O7 is rather dangerous, although I have not seen it.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there SF

Any tips on how to improve this article further? You've always had an emphasis on industrial applications, which keeps us realistic. I've seen the Ullmann's article, but it's quite challenging to integrate all sorts of diverse applications into a single text. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have done good work. Working on such popular articles is so much work. Ultimately the challenge with all common compounds is that they have so many small uses that the articles become lists or scrapbooks of anecdotal applications. A lot of judgement is required when trimming such lists. It would be helpful if Wikipedia had a secondary article for each common compound where the drive-by editors could tell anecdotes without diluting the main article.

As you have seen first hand, Ullmann's does tend to realign one's sense of big applicatons and what is not very big, at least it had that impact on me.

--Smokefoot (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they need a tube furnace to make them, they are definitely more difficult to make than sulfates, for instance. Delete it if you want; I am only making logical conclusions by comparing it to other anionic complexes made by reaction of a socalled acid with a socalled base. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your conclusions on a your naive value system. Be cautious about imposing your experiences as an hobbyist on the real world where the operating parameters are different than yours. For many applications, the ease of a prep may be exactly opposite of your perception. Heating mixtures of solids is generally considered greener and simpler than mixing solutions and precipitations and removal of salts and generating wastes. Often if a material exists on a large scale as a mineral, it is probably easy to make.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you try to find obvious hoaxes like this that lasted for about 3 months than finding subtle anomalies in other edits. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - start with gold-sulfur bond, a real loser. It is often the mis-truths that sound real that are sometimes more damaging. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, as a high-school chemist, do not see anything wrong with that article. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does potassium nitrate have much in common with potassium chloride, except that they both have a potassium ion. Iron sulfide and potassium sulfide both contains sulfide ions, although one may be nonstoichiometric. The purpose is to show related compounds, and iron sulfide is one of the most common sulfides which may provide a link to other sulfides more similar. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I dont think that related = common, but who cares, I guess. It's always revealing to see how different people view chemistry.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi smokefoot somebody asked for a source in the arsenic article. The line is The largest application of arsenic is for alloying with copper and especially lead. And I hope the [diff] is right and it shows that the statement appeared during your restructuring of the article. Thanks. --Stone (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The USGS yearbook reads like the two applications are head to head but with 100% chance that the CCA is slowly vanishing.--Stone (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you undo my change?

Regards, --Elikrieg (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have sent a message. The content of the safety sections have been considered extensively in previous years. We decided that we dont need to tell readers that hydrocarbons are flammable. Even routine toxicity is not included in most articles. Again, I realize that your edits were well-intentioned. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, no problem. Cheers, --Elikrieg (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot, regarding this ([8]) revert, the reference (this one [9] from the USGS) doesn't yield what is claimed in the article. The reference says that 85 % of fluorspar mined is used for production of HF. That compound and not H₂SiF₆ is the primary feedstock for most all fluorochemicals. Please reconsider the edit of yours. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. I needed to refresh my imperfect memory. We are discussing these two points:

• "Hexafluorosilic acid is the feedstock for "virtually all organic and inorganic fluorine-bearing chemicals".
• "85 % of fluorspar mined is used for production of HF"

These statements seem to be mutually compatible. But my reading of Ullmann's encyclopedia suggests that you are correct and I was wrong. However some day way in the future, HF from phosphate is predicted to dominate. I'll make the change. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SF

Was wondering if you could take a look at the stoichiometry of the lithiation reaction. Specifically, the tmeda bit. I'm quite confident I'm right, but the ref doesn't say it explicitly and I want to make sure I didn't make a mistake. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me. The main thing is that ferrocene can virtually only be dilithiated and that the lithiations use one TMEDA per RLi.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One blocked. Let's see about the rest. Such a shame, but they brought it upon themselves. I've tried to contact their in-charge, User talk:Ajm_mich, but it doesn't help either. WP is not a noticeboard to put up these school projects. Sorry, venting, but I'm pissed off. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the students and professor erred in thinking that they can just upload their school project. They probably do not work with this medium and are assuming that Wikipedia is just a dumb upload site like Utube. They have some useful material, but it is not that great. We are coming to the end of semester for US system, so you can expect to see several such episodes. Possibly the prof or one or so students will agree to work with us and expand select sections. You now can see why it is easier for some faculty to have their students draft articles on semi-obscure compounds. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know who you people think you are. This type of thing is not constructive, nor is it helping to better the chemistry content that is available on Wikipedia. You don't own these pages, nor is your opinion on what they should include final or definitive.

We would not have targeted these sites for revision if they were good quality to begin with, but the fact is the pages you are devoting so much time to defending are poorly cited and grossly lacking in detail.

No one here is assuming that wikipedia is similar to You-Tube, and it is not our intent to upload a poor substitute for what currently exists because we are required to do so.

If you have issues with the work we have done you are free to revise it, but you have no right to simply revert the content to the junk that currently exists because you haven't gotten around to fixing it yourself.

It is no wonder that so many people do not have the patience to "stick with it" when people like you abuse your privileges and portray such an arrogant attitude toward the validity of contributions made by others. --Tycarter (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I told you previously, revising does not equal replacing wholesale, with no regard for the history of the page. And you broke a whole bunch of important things at the bottom. You were informed about this the first time you did it. Yet you persisted. Eventually you got blocked because you refused to communicate. I'm sorry if you feel we don't want you to save us, but I'm not sure who's on the high horse here. Editors typically join the project, start slowly, and get acculturated to the community standards. The Manual of Style (which I pointed you to, and which the community ratified a year or two ago) is a start. Apart from that, you (again) simply do not replace an existing article with something else wholesale. Not without discussion. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, and I've already apologized for the mistake, and agreed to proceed according to the rules (as best I can) in the future. However, you still have not addressed our concerns that many of your messages would seem to suggest that you think of yourself as being responsible for the content of a page, and in a position to pass judgement on the contributions of others without participating in the same level of discussion that you are asking from us.

We should not have to feel like we need to ask your permission to upload new content to sites.

Many of the comments that you provided were non-specific and did not extend much beyond "I don't like this" or "this isn't very good".

Additionally, you both seem to have a very disrespectful attitude with regards to our contributions which you should keep to yourself in the future.

I'm a chemist too, and do not appreciate being talked down to. --Tycarter (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Smokefoot has his own opinions; for me, I'm not defending any status quo. I simply reverted your material because it was added improperly. I don't understand why you feel you are barred from editing article, when you are in fact free to do so. None of your edits since that episode have been reverted, for instance.

That you keep harping on me/Smokefoot/both "preventing progress" suggests you hold a grudge about being reverted and blocked, that you are still disputing that episode. If that's not the case, let it go and do your thing. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is mainly with the condescending attitude that both of you have portrayed towards me and the other students who have been working on this project. Despite me pointing out the fact that you have been less than courteous on several occasions neither one of you has made an attempt to apologize or even admit that the attitude your posts convey may not be the best way to encourage people who are new to Wikipedia to continue to contribute.

What particularly concerns me (as I said above) is that the edits that were made were dismissed without any substantive feedback. You could have simply taken the new sections, and incorporated them into the old if posting over was your main concern.

The fact is, you dismissed our work without any justification, and made a habit out of talking down to us in you correspondence.

What I want is for you to apologize and acknowledge that this is not acceptable behavior for an administrator.

--Tycarter (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content was added improperly, it was reverted, the user (you) was notified why it was inappropriate, and the user was advised of the style guide. Perhaps curt, but to the point. I'm sorry if you felt that was condescending, that was not the intention. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that you have made substantial revisions to the sections I uploaded without extending me the courtesy of opening it up to discussion. --Tycarter (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once it's on the main space, it's free for all. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot,

I apologize if it seems like the students are ignoring requests made by the community. Wikipedia editing is quite a beast and there are a lot of details in teaching these students how to edit that get overlooked as result of a lack of time. I will notify them how to check right away.

Our goal is to improve selected pages by substantially adding content to pages missing relevant data, or completely creating new pages. However, the students do not realize that they are being communicated to through their talk pages. In order to control the content that is being added, we hold an internal peer review process, so the information being posted is not entirely unchecked.

Despite being new to Wikipedai's editing system, the students are aware of their readership and work hard to write entries that reflect that. However, if you and your collegues would give more substantial and constructive feedback specifically on the content in question (instead of a blanket comment about logistics and policies of Wikipedia), it goes without saying that such comments are welcomed wholeheartedly. The students will happily address those comments Or feel free to change some of the content yourself.

Additionally, in regards to a reference issue, many of them are already aware of the necessity of DOI numbers and are in the process of filling those in; however, that is a small issue in reference to the big picture and the improvements that their research has made to the page.

Best, MichChemGSI (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes editing in Wikipedia for students is a major chore because their is the style stuff on top of the content. The local chemistry editors have a good grip on both. We also know from experience that students have a dump and run view, especially as US semester system draws to a close. My advice to students is to keep the project scope very concise, hence my recommendation for a focus on mechanism for oxidative addition. And back off the artwork. I guess dealing with editors here gives them a taste of their future in getting impatient reviews.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should not exclude students because these "local chemistry editors have a good grip on both". WIkipedia is available for anyone who has done extensive research and feels the need for the general public to have access to the information to be able to edit. This is not encouraging for the students to contribute and help to educate them on sharing their knowledge. If you encourage the students they will not just dump their project and forget about it. In my experience the students are curious about the progression of their pages as they have placed a lot of time into that work. In my experience concepts are much clearer with images, which is why you normally give a pp in chemistry rather than just a talk, why lectures use a blackboard and not just at a podium. The students have thought about the images that they have added and are conscious about what the image adds to the content it represents.

please do not abuse your blocking capabilities, this does not encourage the students to go back to the pages and work of them more. Blocking only encourages them to "dump and run" as you say.

MichChemGSI (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is not to exclude these students, we work with students all the time. Many of us are students. But Wikipedia is filled with jargon that is not very interesting to them. We get frustrated with any new editor who does understand the cooperative and incremental nature of editing here. Good grad students do seem more ready to drink the academic Kool-Aid about the meaning of "useful" (i.e. an organic group at Harvard uses it in their total synthesis) and they tend to cite more specialized articles. But it takes all types. Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion you did of William Marcus you did from the Whistleblower article is not constructive. (Wikidrips (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the advice.

I have to disagree a little bit; as someone who uses wikipedia for chemistry information quite often, I think it is nice to have both the overview and the technical information. But I can see what you mean about the secondary/primary information. I used 2 reviews and 13 primary references for the article and it would probably help to include more accessible and neutral information.

I should also note that in my review of the subject I did not simply make a list of the minutia regarding the Weinreb Amide; I tried to glean the most interesting/useful applications and variations from the literature. Perhaps you disagree with my analysis, if that's the case, then I have no qualms. Any suggestions on what you figure is too specific (and should be removed) would be appreciated.

Finally, I have to thank you for the link to the most-viewed articles within the Chemistry project, I've already found a couple of projects I will likely start in the next few weeks.

Mdlevin (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello there,

i see you contributed last to above article, and since it is semi-protected and its talk page, could you add discussion about this? thanks. 188.2.166.104 (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]