Hi Smokefoot,

Thank you for your kind response on the page Organic Fertilizers. As you can see, I've been trying to add some sections into this. I am truly sorry if this annoys you, as you say it is textbook-like. However, i am doing this for my chemistry class, as the assignment asks me to add some details on one Wikipedia page. So please, let it be on Organic Fertilizers page for 2 weeks since I did quite a lot research to gather these things together. Again, thank you for your comment and edit. Please let it be for a week or two so that my work can be graded.

Sincerely, (Psvo277 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)) Organic Fertilizers[reply]

You can sneer if you like Smokefoot but for Wikipedia to be telling people that RuO4 is a colourless liquid is inexcusable misinformation. The info on the Ruthenium Tetroxide page even contradicts the info on the Ruthenium page. So I hope you feel proud of "correcting" my edit.

And the physical state (solid at 25C). I fully understand your points regarding self citation and primary sources. However, I would not personally regard the ACA Journal of Physical Chemistry as an "obscure" source. The subject of the paper is obscure, not many people get to prepare, handle and use RuO4 in quantity, I did, as an academic and a consultant to the Johnson Matthey company (23 years ago as you accurately point out). You won't find a description of how RuO4 reacts in neutral aqueous solution in any textbook, in real inorganic chemistry (not organometallic) these change with glacial speed. Nevertheless, for many chemists and in many practical situations a knowledge of how a compound behaves in contact with water is a fairly fundamental consideration. Think about it at least. HNM

@H.n.mcmurray:. I am not sneering, especially after reading your message. I am a regular here, and Wikipedia is just bombarded by so-called do-gooders whose only editing contributions involve self-promotion. So I am sick to death of that shit. It is just relentless. Hence my reminding you (at talk:ruthenium tetroxide) that there are 1000+ citations to RuO4, so why should any individual specialized article be cited above the other 999? These one-time editors always claim to be in love with the concept of Wikipedia and often pledge to future editing activities. None of which comes to fruition. So I am mad, not just angry, mad about the predicament. There are about a dozen or two editors holding this fort, and 1000 losers trying to break it down. So there.

We have very few people who can offer any industrial perspectives, which are invaluable. So I am sorry if I soured you on this project, and I apologize. If it is any consolation, I am committed to stating the correct appearance of chemicals. It is one of the singular jobs here. Last night I revised an article that claimed something (4-Aminobiphenyl) was purple, when in fact it is white. So I will repair the RuO4 article.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smokefoot - that is the spirit. HNM

Hi Smokefoot, Since you removed the incorrect RN for anhydrous Chevreul’s salt (which I got from PubChem and also appears in CRC handbook) do you want to fix https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27259667 ? I suspect the anhydrous form does not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme: I thought that I was doing a service, so you are okay with the change. Yes, an endeavor will be made to edit the Wikidata. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a good service, as I have no access to the official CASNo listings. I am happy with your change as it is based on what the primary database actually says rather than tertiary sources with errors. I have not managed to get errors on the Pubchem site corrected yet. However chemspider is very responsive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per title. In essence, how do chemistry content workers communicate? I believe email is also a venue too if en.wiki is not suitable. -- Ktsquare (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Smokefoot (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Hi there. No I have no attended these discussions. I am still working full time, so regular meetings during office hours (US) are awkward for me.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your image of the dimer of Reuterin seems to have one too many carbon atoms in its tail group. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Project Osprey:. Thank you. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the merging of the nitroprusside reaction stub. Also, could you tell me how did you do everything about disambiguation and linking? It would help me with any future edits and merging.
--Light Code (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Light Code: I barely understand formatting. A lot of very experienced colleagues keep me and my edits in line. So I am the wrong person to ask about anything, except for chemistry. When I am forced to do something mildly fancy, I just try to replicate (i.e. copy) what more savvy editors do.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the chemical structure at lithium borate (File:Lithium tetraborate.svg) wrong? Looks like nonsense to me. Inorganic compounds are out of my area of expertise, so I thought maybe you can have a look. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like other language wikis are using the same flawed image. The give-away is the B=O, which never exists, akin to Si=O. Thanks for catching this.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I will nominate the image for deletion on Commons. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot,

Not sure if you prefer to be pinged about commons images here or on commons, but it's about an image used here on en.wp...

Regarding File:Cp*2Ru2Cl4clearer.png as a replacement for File:Cp*2Ru2Cl4.png I agree that it is clearer (bond-overlap problem in original). But does it now have a stray bond from the right ruthenium to one of the carbons of its Cp* ring? DMacks (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to doi:10.1002/9780470132609.ch52; does it have a crystal structure with coordinates listed? But [[doi:10.1002/1521-3773(20000901)39:17<3077::AID-ANIE3077>3.0.CO;2-B]] that I can access suggests that the structure actually has the two Cp* rings at opposite rotations as each other. Both current diagrams have both rings rotated with a CMe forward and a ring MeC=CMe back (molecular C2 symmetry about an axis through the two bridging chlorine atoms). If instead the right ring is rotated to put its CMe in the back (analogous to staggered rather than eclipsed ferrocene forms), that might solve the bond-alignment problem and also be closer to the literature. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. I'll fix that mistake. Good eye! --Smokefoot (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was in nutritional biochemistry (PhD, MIT '81), so of course, for the minerals that are also essential nutrients, interested in and editing to the biological content. And not exactly a bias, but for those, also for vitamins, macro-nutrients, and all the non-nutrients marketed as dietary supplements, aiming a critical eye at the inadequately substantiated health claims content. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I buy that you are well intentioned. We both are. But I fear (maybe unfoundedly) that you are propping up fringe science that is, IMHO, best ignored rather than rebutted full throttle. Your response might be exactly what that that nutty community wants. And in terms of the Chromium article, I am very strongly in disagreement and saddened that when someone with a keen but specialized interest edits to the extent that the panorama changes and what is big (metallurgy, Cr(VI), mining) becomes dwarfed by what is fringy. I cant stop you, so please be prudent. Pretty busy at this end, so catch you later.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also a good link for page views: "Sulfur". Wikipedia. Periodic behavior suggests that people go to sleep on weekends. Regards. Tachyon (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the data trend is reminiscent of the [[Keeling [curve]. The periodicity probably reflect work schedules. The alternative theory is that students are the dominant users, but essays and homework reports are probably written during the weekends. Whatever. The main thing is impact. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot! I won't dispute your reversion of the acetic acid article. However, the reason I added that line is that I tried to describe the structures of porphyrins, and I was unsure how to call the side chains like −CH−CH₂−COOH. I tried asking that question on a reddit chemical forum, but half the answers emphatically contradicted the other half... 8-)
I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia should be to answer such questions from such readers as myself. Maybe the head section of acetic acid article is not the right place; but where should that information go, then?
By the way, methinks that there are some items in the chembox that are much less useful, and for which your objection would apply even better. For instance, the "hazards" section (a link to the official MSDS should be enough, and much safer), and the "related compounds" section (xenon hexafluoride is related to cellulose, no? They both have electrons in orbitals... 8-)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jorge: Well thank you for taking my slightly aggressive deletion of your list of functional groups derived from acetic acid. I expected to be reverted or challenged. It takes so much will power not to react negatively to having work reverted. I was just thinking that someone less experienced than us start listing all of the functional groups" (or substituents) that could be derived from propionic acid or salicylic acid. My feeling is that these lists could get long, and no one would find them.

Good luck dealing with the hazards sections but I am not optimistic. We agree on that aspect. For many editors, if they could not edit about safety, they would have nothing to say because they dont know very much real chemistry.

Good luck with the porphyrin project. You see that I added bilane to help you. In the bilane article is a source that could be helpful for organizing this area: "Nomenclature of tetrapyrroles". I am no fan of formal nomenclature, but this article lists every possible porphyrinoid, which would be a good target for Wikipedia.

Thank you again for your comments. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit includes the statement

The condensation of two equivalents of mono-silicic acid gives di-silicic acid:

2 Si(OH)₄ → (HO)₃SiOSi((OH)₃ + H₂O

is wrong. This reaction was not used to make Si(OH)₄ in the cited work.

The original WP text was based on a reading of the cited publication.

The conversion of mono-silicic acid to di-silicic acid

2 Si(OH)₄ → (HO)₃SiOSi((OH)₃ + H₂O

is a dehydration reaction, not an acid-base reaction… (links removed). Dicilicic acid was not synthesized by dehydration of the mono-acid.

I used the term "sub-millimolar" intentionally. The solubility of SiO₂ is ca. 1mM at RT. The original statement makes more sense in the context of the hydrothermal synthesis of large silica (quartz) crystals, which has occurred in nature. The point that I was trying to make is that it is difficult to determine exactly what species are present in aqueous solution when their concentrations are so low. Petergans (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits. I have further revised the section on silicic acids. However an issue remains with this article. I suggest that "oceanic silica" should be transferred to silicon dioxide. Please do it if you agree. Petergans (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your message left here: User_talk:Shinkolobwe#Superplasticizer

Hi Smokefoot,

Thank you very much for your kind message and for the two references on the superplasticizers. My attention on phosphonates was drawn in a Sika data sheet of a concrete retarder I was looking for. Therefore, my search for more information on phosphonates and my contribution to the phosphonate page. I confirm that phosphonates are commercially used as concrete retarder, at least by Sika. I aggree with you that phosphonates are not commercially available superplasticisers, but sometimes, I find research papers on their potential use to fullfill this function. The most performant and most recently commercialised superplasticizer family are the Poly-Carboxylate Ether (PCE): their action mode to increase the dispersion of cement particles is not based on the electrostatic repulsion between clinker mineral/cement particles (as it is the case with melamine sulfonate (SMF) and naphtalene sulfonate, SNF) but is due to the steric effect produced by the lateral chains grafted on their main polymeric skeleton. I have adapted in consequence the section dealing with concrete admixture in the phosphonate page. Superplasticizers is also a field evolving fast and also often covered by industrial secret and intellectual properties.

With kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Molybdenum cofactor has become a dab. A layman can easily confuse the two meanings, so any clues as to how to disambiguate the incoming links, especially in {{Enzyme cofactors}} and {{Metabolism of vitamins, coenzymes, and cofactors}}, would be appreciated. Thanks, Certes (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to respond to your comment on Nonstoichiometric semiconductors when you removed it. I suppose you could be bold and just start renaming. I note that there is no iron(IV) sulfide article, which is just as well, but there is pyrite. But this hardly has chemical description anyway. Perhaps there can be redirects though. Cosmetically I don't much like the oxidation state in brackets, and I think we should be sticking to common names where they exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your recent edit on Linoleic acid, where you stated that linoleic acid is an oil. In my opinion, this statement is quite ambiguous, since oils and fats usually consist of triglycerides (put aside mineral oils, which mainly consist of alkanes). Assaiki (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oils are viscous liquids. The point is to demystify the nature of this fatty acid. Thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Triphosphene. Since you had some involvement with the Triphosphene redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Smokefoot (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smokefoot,

I realised you got rid of an edit on MoS2 regarding the 'relatively unreactive' nature of MoS2. The thing is, MoS2 very clearly degrades in ambient (the role of light admittedly has not been researched for this material as of yet). It is not unreactive. It can be affected by oxygen (it oxidises) and there may be H2SO4 produced (so some more complex reactions). So this sentence is simply wrong, and one needs to appreciate this fact.

That being said, I completely agree with your removing of the citations, but I think you need to reconsider putting back some relevant citations to tackle this legitimately wrong assertion of 'relative unreactive-ness'. Waiting for reviews in my opinion is silly, when it is so obviously wrong right now, and a reference or two in lieu of a review reference (which can be updated at a later point) should be totally OK. In fact you could include the 2019 review on oxidation of 2D-TMDs ("Recent advances in oxidation and degradation mechanisms of ultrathin 2D materials under ambient conditions and their passivation strategies"), but this reference does not appreciate that photo-oxidation may be occurring also. It's at least a start...

Cheers,

TheMaddeningScientist (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot,

You should probably get consensus at WT:CHEM before you go too far with converting {{OrgSynth}} to {{cite journal}}, especially given your use of |author= is throwing a diagnostic for misuse. DMacks (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wondering about that. --Smokefoot (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In Your edit You now state that the industrial route for the synthesis is via the Perkin reaction. This only trivially supported by the source, which only states that it is the oldest commercially used method. I would not be confident enough to give this as a timeless fact. --Lpd-Lbr (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and for getting this re-analysis going. I was sure surprised to read that the original prep use AcCl.

Indeed, it is difficult to know for sure how cinnamic acid is made industrially. It is slightly a moot point because the market for the acid is probably small. It is the esters that sell as fragrances, and these are almost certainly or very likely made from an esterified precursor. By the same token, the acid might even be made by saponification.

You are welcome to take another crack at the article. My suggestion is that we not dwell on sourcing the nearly unknowable. Readers digesting the article should have confidence that they know the range of methodologies and, hopefully, the good sense that proprietary methods are in the end proprietary. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the reply and invitation. When looking at it again, it was not much that I wanted to add. Thank You also for clarifying Your rationale. Cheers --Lpd-Lbr (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would you like to review this choline draft article and suggest/make improvements to it? Parts of it could be incorparated to the existing choline article. See also the talk page, if you are interested. 5-HT2AR (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe having you as an admin would be greatly beneficial to chemistry on wikipedia. You have made 42,282 edits at the time of writing and are very active indicating you are definitely qualified for the position. If you are interested let me know and I will create the nomination. EvilxFish (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Interesting idea. Right now I am pretty satisfied with my rights within the Wikipedia realm. Thank you for the vote of confidence. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will not put in the nomination then, however should you change you mind drop me a line and I will be happy to. Much love EvilxFish (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Carbon monoxide dehydrogenase.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

...that this sentence you wrote was quoted favorably by Derek Lowe in https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/06/16/your_metal_azide_worries_are_over ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]