User talk:IpseCustos

Message from User:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr
(this message was originally left on my user page, I moved it here)

I am not a crackpot - I am a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Associat for the Advancement of Science, and a published expert in chemical thermodynamics and chemical energy. Before you continue your deletions, you need to read my papers about chemical energy, which are based on rigorous, quantitative thermodynamics. Then we can discuss the science here, and get away from the naïve assumptions that have commonly been made about chemical energy. You cannot just look at paper titles and jump to conclusions while lacking the needed expertise or willingness to learn.

In any case, if you delete my explanations, e.g. of why plants need two photosystems, of which one is just dedicated to using photon energy to produce O2, or why the energy yield of glucose fermenting without O2 is meager compared to that of its aerobic respiration with O2, please replace them with well-referenced alternative quantitative explanations. I predict that you will fail: Why combustion or aerobic respiration of organic molecules is always exothermic and produces 100 kcal per mole of O2 consumed has not been derived or explained in any textbook or review article that I am aware of (and I have checked many). Then maybe you will understand why the hundreds of expert Wikipedia editors who have read these statements about chemical energy have let them stand: My analysis of chemical energy is rigorous and scientifically correct; there is no convincing alternative available. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for writing. I feel the need to point out that I did not at any point accuse you of being a "crackpot". Someone else used that term.
 * Honestly, I'm not sure how to proceed here, because Wikipedia's policies clearly mandate the removal of statements that contradict the "assumptions that have commonly been made about chemical energy", where those constitute scientific consensus (and, in particular, because they're not "assumptions" at all but definitions that you chose to deviate from but have offered no replacement for). On the other hand, I would like the additional confirmation that what is being removed isn't just odd science, it's pseudoscience.
 * So I'll have to think, and hope for further input, before deciding how to proceed. If we can find another Wikipedia editor with a strong "conventional" chemistry background, maybe they could help. IpseCustos (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is quantitative science fully within the framework of the laws of thermodynamics and based on a conventional understanding of bond energies; it is not in the least pseudoscience. O2 reacting with any of millions of organic molecule releases hundreds of kJ/mol and one can explain why: the relatively weak double bond of O2 makes it a relatively unstable molecule of high chemical energy. The energy released in combustion (or aerobic respiration) of organic molecules is quite strictly (±3%) proportional to the amount of O2 consumed (418 kJ per mole of O2, after correction for condensation of H2O). You refer to “scientific consensus” here, so it should be easy for you to quote a textbook or review article that presents this important proportionality of the heat of combustion with O2 consumption and explains it quantitatively. If you cannot point out such a reference, your assumption of an existing “scientific consensus” regarding chemical energy is proven incorrect.


 * The statement that oxygen is high in chemical energy is a good summary of the energy release in millions of reactions of O2 with organic molecules, and it has predictive power: If you see a reaction of O2 in biochemistry, you can predict that a lot of energy will be released. Examples are the reaction of O2 at complex IV of the inner mitochondrial membrane, where nearly half of all the energy of aerobic respiration is released without any bonds of an organic molecule being broken, or bioluminescence, where a photon of ~ 200 kJ/mol energy is emitted, which only O2 can provide – and indeed O2 is the only indispensable reactant in bioluminescence. I have found that there are no other published explanations of these facts, so there is no “scientific consensus” to replace. Again, please check the textbooks and review articles yourself and show us how the “scientific consensus” explains these observations.


 * And what is the “scientific consensus” explanation for fermentation of glucose producing only 2 ATP, but respiration of glucose + 6 O2 producing 30 ATP? (Attributing this difference to incomplete decomposition of glucose in fermentation is invalid, because splitting glucose up all the way into 3 CO2 + 3 CH4 releases only 15% of the energy of glucose combustion with 6 O2, and complete decomposition of glucose into 6 formaldehyde molecules releases no energy at all.)


 * Or why do plants need two photosystems? Please quote us a meaningful explanation of this fundamental fact from the “scientific consensus” in a textbook or review. I can easily explain that Photosystem II, which splits 2 H2O into four hydrogen atoms (in the end carried by moderate-energy molecules called plastoquinols) and O2, uses most of the photon energy to make the high-energy product O2. The plant gets energy for itself only from the second photosystem (Photosystem I), where ATP and glucose are produced. Indeed, bacteria using H2S instead of H2O do not produce O2 and therefore need only one photosystem. (Why do plants make and give off high-energy O2? It is the price they have to pay to get the hydrogen atoms (or protons and electrons, if you prefer) that they need to make organic molecules with CO2 in any environment that has H2O. Since the sun provides the needed energy abundantly, it’s not too high a price.)


 * In summary, unless you can produce references and evidence to the contrary, you will have to acknowledge that the oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is actually the only known quantitative theory of combustion and respiration energetics that has explanatory and predictive power.
 * Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it okay for me to quote or link to this response of yours on WP:FTN? IpseCustos (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. Thanks. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Energy-rich species
Hello, IpseCustos. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Energy-rich species, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Energy-rich species


Hello, IpseCustos. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Energy-rich species".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . I've had this draft on my watchlist for a while and I recently asked for it to be restored. Could you please clarify your comment above about the material being deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace? Was it you who deemed it unsuitable? If yes, what was the problem? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Clayoquot,
 * This is our standard CSD G13 speedy deletion template that we post on User talk pages. I delete around 200 expiring drafts every day and with each one, Twinkle posts this template on the draft creator's talk page. I didn't write the template, it is Twinkle's default template for G13 deletions.This isn't "my"comment, it's how the template is worded (see Template:Db-draft-deleted). Perhaps the template should be rewritten.
 * I wouldn't focus on the exact wording of a CSD template and instead focus on the G13 criteria...this draft hasn't been edited by a human editor in at least 6 months and therefore is considered abandoned and suitable for deletion. That is the only issue with the draft, that it has been abandoned. If an editor wants to work on the draft, even if they aren't the draft creator, they can come to the deleting administrator or to WP:REFUND and it will be restored. Since you have asked for a draft to be restored, you seem to be familiar with the process. It seems like you mainly have issues with the template so maybe you should suggest that this template be rewritten. This could happen on the template talk page or proposed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
 * I do have a question for you though. Why is this discussion on IpseCustos's talk page? They haven't been active for over six months. This is not an appropriate location for a discussion between the two of us. Next time, please come to my talk page or, if it involves policy, start a discussion on a policy talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Liz. To answer your question, I believe it's appropriate to respond to a comment, including a templated one, by asking for the poster's clarification. If a comment is unclear to me it may also be unclear - and perhaps demoralizing - to IpseCustos.  My question was a question for you, not a criticism of you.
 * With the understanding that nobody has deemed Draft:Energy-rich species unsuitable for mainspace, I'll give it another check and will probably move it to mainspace.
 * IpseCustos, I hope you are well and will return to editing Wikipedia. Take care, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 13:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Clayoquot Thank you for your messages and good wishes! (And Liz, thank you for the notifications!)
 * I had indeed taken an extended break since I was accused of being a sock for a banned user.
 * Please note that I'm not at all married to the idea that we have articles like this one. Deletion is fine by me for the time being... IpseCustos (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you! Being accused of socking is really, really tough. I can understand wanting a break after something like that. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)