User talk:Itub/2008 (01-06)

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?
Hi, Itub, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy?  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for letting me know, I'll comment in more detail once I have time to re-read the article. --Itub (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 01:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ununoctium
Hi. You seemed interested in this article. I have expanded the article with published papers and I submitted it for FAC. If you have time, take a look at the article again and leave some comments. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have taken your suggestions and made some modifications to improve readability of the article. Thank you. Nergaal (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Hi Itub, we are holding the IRC meeting at 1600 UTC after all. I hope you can come! Walkerma (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're meeting right now - if you're around please join us! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

List of important publications in chemistry
I have added an entry myself - Coulson's Valence. I can not think why it was not added earlier. Could you keep an eye on the discussion on the talk page, if any, to keep or delete it, and close it on January 28? --Bduke (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag off the main page, but could you formally close the discussion on the talk page. Thanks for your comment. --Bduke (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arsenicum album
An article that you have been involved in editing, Arsenicum album, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Table Manners C·U·T 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial dilution
I agree with you that it certainly shouldn't be any longer; however, since homeopathy is a highly controversial subject on Wikipedia, it seemed best to give plenty of references to support the text.

I've moved the last paragraph to the talk page - you're right that that's probably irrelevant. Adam Cuerden talk 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Chemical bonds
I revamped the template. what do you think? Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethanol
Thanks so much for ! I must apologize, it's been so long since I've touched thermochemistry I've forgotten all the essentials... sign conventions and states of matter. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was actually adding that data to the page, but you beat me by a minute so we an edit conflict... ;-) BTW, I meant ΔHvap, not ΔG, of course. I think it would be better to add the data for the combustion of the liquid instead (since it's the standard state for ethanol), but I'm too lazy to format the references... --Itub (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Montmorillonite image scale
A comment has been posted on Talk:Montmorillonite regarding the ceel spacing on Image:Montmorillonite-en.svg which you uploaded las summer. Seems the cell spacing is given as mm on the image whereas it should read nm. Vsmith (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature
Your comments would be appreciated in Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature about the "Most awarded countries" table since you previously commented on this issue in Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry. A similar table was removed from the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Nobel Prize in Physics articles in December 2007 but has been reinstated in the Nobel Prize in Literature article. –panda (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NaF toxicity
Why so much emphasis in saying that it is only "mildly" toxic? While I agree that a lethal dose > 1 g could reasonably called "mild", it is an arbitrary distinction. Who sets the limits between nontoxic, mildly toxic, toxic, highly toxic, extremely toxic, etc.? My suggestion is to avoid any such labels and just give the numbers, unless you are getting the label from an authority such as a standards organization or government (in which case it would be a good idea to cite it). Consider that NaF is called "toxic" by EU standards, if the infobox at sodium fluoride is correct. It has a 3 in the NFPA scale from 0 to 4 (although some sources give it a 2; I haven't checked to see if there is an authoritative NFPA source I can check). JT Baker even calls it "severe (poison)". Sure, as chemists we may feel that MSDSs tend to err in the side of exaggeration, because we don't tend to eat the chemicals we work with, and we usually work with small amounts, so NaF doesn't seem like a big deal. But it is toxic. Not as much as botulinum toxin, or even good ol' cyanide, but still toxic. About a couple of orders of magnitude more toxic than table salt, for example. Table salt has also been used for suicide, but it is way less likely to cause accidental deaths, because it is much less toxic than NaF. --Itub (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should leave this theme alone, since other sensible people are writing about F-. Tying NaF to "toxicity" (I agree we need to define this term for WE-Chem) advances the agenda that the antifluoridation enthusiasts are promoting, unethically IMHO. They are trying to tie the word "toxic" to "fluoride," and I think that such a linkage is misleading or requires greater context.  The alternative, I guess, would be to calibrate 5-10 g of toxicity - what other chemicals are toxic at that level - my guess: tens of thousands of chemicals.  So, are we editors going to require a label of toxicity for each report on a chemical that is toxic at the 5-10 g level?  Are we going to be held hostage to this level of chemophobia/naivite?  My overarching fear is that the fluoride article is representative of an assault on reason by homeopathic - antifluoridation - trace-nutritionist - creationists - flat earthers.  Few of whom cite decent references (mainly blogs or vanity press), and many of whom seem convinced that they are somehow privy to some "dirty secret."  Furthermore these same editors are highly effective or at least persistent with the litigious side of wikipedia (see the protracted discussion on fluoride talk), yet these same folk are rarely capable of discussing the science in any reasonable detail.  This idea that NPOV promotes, in effect, fringe views is one of the driving forces that induces technically savvy editors to leave this project, which is just what AeronM and co want.  I have no angle on the fluoridation business, I am just an inorganic chemist, and I am very concerned about the impact of chemicals on human welfare, but I dont try to use WE-chem as a vehicle to promote my views.  So to summarize, listing NaF as "toxic" without qualifications advances fringe views in an manner that I find questionable.  But I will now move on to other less controversial themes. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To help you see my thinking, here's a line of argumentation on the inadvisability of warnings about "routinely toxic" chemicals, such as NaF. What about chairs?  Chairs can be dangerous and surely people have died because of poorly designed chairs or have been struck by chairs.  Should the article on chairs indicate that they can be dangerous?  Ditto for virtually any item around us.  So the interesting point, which initially seems sarcastic, is what so distinguishes chemicals that requires editors to highlight routine toxicity (my definition of routine toxicity: several spoonful are required, one must be suicidal, insane, or murdered to perish with NaF) vs "if you hit someone over the head with this your-item-here, it could be fatal" or, equivalently, "if you ingest your-item-here, it could be fatal"?  Perhaps this thinking would clarify the difficulty that I have with the NaF toxicity.  Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * People don't need to be insane or murdered to suffer from NaF poisoning. If you look at the literature, many accidents are documented. At worse, you could accuse the people responsible of negligence, but insanity seems too strong an accusation. You are right that these are relatively rare occurrences, and probably more people die from falling from chairs (perhaps they lose their balance while changing a light bulb or painting the ceiling and break their neck). But I would still say that there is a difference. First, chemicals are more specific in the way they kill or injure. I suspect that if you go to the ER with a broken skull, the doctors won't care that much if you fell from a chair, a horse, or a pogo stick. They will focus on the broken skull and related damage. But if you go because of poisoning, they will definitely want to know if it was fluoride, cyanide, or methanol, because that determines the appropriate treatment. Second, there is a large body of toxicology literature about different groups of chemicals, which is notable and encyclopedic IMO. I don't know if there is as large a body of literature on chair risks.
 * I know that the Aldrich catalog has thousands of chemicals, and probably most of them will kill you if you eat five grams. So what is different about NaF? First, that it is a common chemical, so poisonings actually happen and are documented. Second, that the metabolism and toxicology of fluoride has been studied in detail, unlike most of the chemicals in the catalog. So to me it is a matter of notability and available information, not of LD50. I agree that most chemical articles don't need a toxicology section, but not because they are not toxic enough. It is because the information is not available or the real impact of the chemical is very small due to lack of exposure.
 * I really don't care much for the anti-fluoridation and flat earth activists. I just want to state the facts about acute poisoning due to large amounts of fluoride. IMO, that has nothing to do with the risk or lack thereof of ppm concentrations of fluoride in water. If they think that that helps prove their case, that's their problem, because it doesn't. We just need to clearly separate the issue of the acute toxicity in large amounts, about which there is no debate, from the more controversial water fluoridation issue which is better dealt with in its own article. You seem to be worried that a naive reader may get the wrong impression that NaF is an extremely dangerous chemical. I thought that just giving the numbers for the lethal dose should be enough information, but now that I think about it many people have no idea how much 5 g is or how to put it into context. The presentation could be improved, but I think that using subjective terms such as "mild" is not the way to go (remember, several government and industry organizations call NaF "toxic" and I doubt that it is due to anti-fluoridation lobbying). Perhaps a better solution would be to compare it with other well-known substances to put it into perspective for the reader. For example, say "NaF is about 20 times more toxic than NaCl, but 20 times less toxic than NaCN" (the numbers may need some checking). --Itub (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC group numbers
Thanks for answering my question at Talk: Group (periodic table) re the date of the new IUPAC system. This is the information I wanted - much more informative than an undefined "new". Dirac66 (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, it took a year and a half, but better late than never... You are welcome. Cheers, Itub (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

D Tombe
I don't see signs that anybody but David believes there is any error in derivations, formulas, or the way the formulas are applied in any of the articles fictitious force, centrifugal force or centripetal force. Do you agree about that?

If so, please, what is the objective of the D Tombe engagement? If not, please tell me what is at stake here, because I'd like to clarify any points that really bother you. Brews ohare (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. I tried to quit the fight and already suggested Anome to do the same, but sometimes I couldn't resist. As you say, the sparring can be fun. Please see this comic for an illustration: (this one is also related: ). Cheers, Itub (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Enjoyed the comics, thanks. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

History of science section in centrifugal force
I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far? There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example,, ), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, the two links you just gave are behind the paywall, or are you referring to other papers? I have access to these two papers (which look very interesting), and could send you the PDFs as an email attachment if you give me an email address (you can reach me by email through Special:EmailUser/Itub). --Itub (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hexafluorosilicic acid
Itub - In respect of the above article, I agree my "table salt" comment may have been overcooking the point a little. However, and with all respect, I think my edit relating to the amount of lead in tap water was fairly based. However, I'm not too strongly wedded to my edit and so I'm happy to abide with your edit -- best regards Quantockgoblin (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are probably right about the facts. However, someone might demand a reference for that.:) But my main concern was just that it seems too "defensive" to add that, after it is already stated that the increase in the concentration of the toxic metals in question is not even measurable. Excessive pileup of facts to belabor a point can become indistinguishable from advocacy. --Itub (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas
For some of the paragraphs that you added, they do not have references at the very end. Could you please add some references to those? It's harder (at least, for me) to find references to back up scientific articles than others because of the more limited resources compared to popular culture articles and the like. Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in regard to LSPT
Thanks for your support in regard to Janet's Left Step Periodic table. I agree with you. It should be a separate article about the LSPT and its variations.

Drova (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this forum that discusses LSPT alternative table that is called ADOMAH PT if you are interested. Drova (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe and George Smyth XI
Oops, I removed my comment to my own talk page, per your note at the top. -- SCZenz (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nokia 1600
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking consumer products are notable as well! Thanks for the clear and concise Keep. Shoombooly (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sodium chromate
Don't you think it's a bit mean if I explicitly state in the edit summary that I'm expanding the article to save an own copy and now 2 hours of my work are for the birds? --Oxymoron83 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry, I didn't see your edit summary. I had seen the article a few minutes before you left that summary, and after leaving a note on User:GarrettHeath4's talk suggesting that he expand his mini-stubs on chemicals I decided to give this one a try because it seemed like it should be easy to rescue. Anyway, I'm sure you must have come up with some information that I haven't added, it isn't like the article is already comprehensive! Cheers, Itub (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Obscure vs general topics
Your comments on the OR discussion, which are probably lost in the sea of verbage that comes with these debates, were insightful. It is the general chem topics (elements, basic concepts) that are most difficult to write and most important to explain, but these same article are targeted by eager young learners who are keen to spread or test their insights. I dont see any resolution to this situation short of some sort of controls. One partial step would be to limit the editing of the key articles to registered users, but allow anyone to make comments on talk pages.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, maybe we should be more liberal about using page protection. And we need to have a way of preventing deterioriation of basic articles that are reasonable good but need constant babysitting to prevent this type of "entropy increase". Perhaps the flagged revisions feature, if ever implemented, will help a little. --Itub (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops
I wanted to add Hess's law. Must have been an edit conflict. Sorry! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I knew it had to be an accident. Cheers, Itub (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Name reactions
Added Category:Name reactions to all on your list. Added Chemistry to the talk pages on that list too. Let me know what else I can help. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Itub (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This recent article has given me an idea - how about an infobox reaction? Parameters I am thinking of include:


 * discoverer
 * year
 * first reference
 * substrate (class of compounds)
 * reagent (single compound or class of compounds)
 * reactants (superseding substrate/reagent for coupling-type reactions)
 * catalyst
 * related transformations
 * notable applications
 * notes (air free, protecting groups needed, etc)

What do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an interesting possibility, but perhaps you might want to mention it at the wikiproject in case there are more opinions. I suppose there may be some concern that some of the properties of a reaction are too complicated to fit in a box. There's also the generic complaint about redundancy (for example, do you really need the discoverer in the infobox, when it is already in the first of second sentence in the lead?), which applies to most types of infoboxes (luckily not to chemicals--the chemical infobox generally provides more data, usually numerical, which is not always included in the prose, or even if it is, it is made more accessible in the infobox). Regarding the specific fields, I would add a "target" or "product" field. I think we should make the kind of information provided by March's appendix B ("Classification of reactions by type of compound synthesized") somehow accessible in Wikipedia. I'm not sure what the optimum way of adding this information is, but infoboxes could help. Categories could be "overcategorizing" (if you look at that appendix you'll see what I mean), and mentioning all the reactions in the articles about functional groups would take too much space for the more popular groups.
 * But really, I think it is important to get the opinion of people who deal with reactions the most (such as V8rik). --Itub (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds very good. Of course some reactions (like RCH2OH to RCH=O) don't have "names" yet are really important.  You're thinking of creating something equivalent to Larock?  (I love that March index too, by the way.)  I'd suggest talking to User:~K (he's not so active (I can email him if you need me to), but wants to be kept in the loop, as he may get active again), and also to Mark Leach (who will probably have some great ideas).  Walkerma (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a moment, I'll bring my wishlist to WT:Chemistry. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Noble gas
Featured article candidates/Noble gas Gary King ( talk ) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank you for your contributions to Noble gas. It recently passed FAC and is now a Featured Article! :) Gary King ( talk ) 07:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to see that it is featured now. Thanks for all your work too! --Itub (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)