User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr

Welcome!
Glad to see another chemist join Wikipedia! WikiProject Chemistry is one of several informal working-groups if you're looking for editors with interest and/or expertise in chemistry-related topics, ideas of what articles need work, etc. DMacks (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, but be careful
Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are: If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
 * Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest.  Many new editors cite themselves mainly.  That behavior indicates that you either are seeking to promote yourself or you dont know or care enough to promote work not published by you.  So avoid self-citations!  Tacky.

April 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mass in special relativity, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Note- see also wp:Edit warring, wp:BRD, and Talk:Mass in special relativity. - DVdm (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Needful of help
Exothermic reaction and exergonic reaction would benefit from your inspection. These articles are probably heavily consulted.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A request to contribute to the discussion
Good morning,

please express your opinion in the thread "relativistic mass" in the discussion with DVdm:

"The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass"

thank you in advance, Best Regards, RodriguesVector.


 * Thank you Klaus Schmidt-Rohr again for the opinion expressed in my "talk", I would like to ask for its "final" summary.


 * Unfortunately, the editor of the DVdm did not present the specification of objections as postulated by you. On the contrary, I have demonstrated the misapplication of Wikipedia rules.


 * In conditions where the editors do not follow Wikipedia's rules, I will be forced to give up.


 * Anyway, please "final" opinion on the topic.


 * Best regards RodriguesVector (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

invitation to chat
Hello, editor Klaus Schmidt-Rohr. I would be glad if you would kindly chat with me on my talk page about the definition of enthalpy.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the self-citations
Hi Klaus: you should remove your recent self-citations. Our guidelines advise against the practice, especially when the citation is to a primary source. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that again you are putting citations to your own work into Wikipedia articles. If your paper is important enough to be cited, other editors will add it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC).


 * @User: Klaus Schmidt-Rohr. Wikipedia has a behavioral guideline WP:Conflict of interest (COI) which, as you have been editing Thermodynamics topics since 2015, you are likely to be familiar with. The guideline prescribes that special care must be taken when a user edits on matters that involve themself. Putting citations to one's own publications into Wikipedia falls into that category. The guideline requires that any COI be fully revealed by the editor. A search of Wikipedia with "Schmidt-Rohr, K" gives 101 hits. I have not checked every one of them, and not all of them may be your own edits, but many of them identify citations to your papers inserted by yourself. You may care to fill in the details. I have not yet been able to find where you have given full disclosure of a COI for these edits. 101 is a large number; in contrast, searching Wikipedia with "Onsager, L", a Nobel prize winner who has made fundamental and famous contributions to Thermodynamics, gives 18 hits. It seems that your papers have had more than five times the impact on Wikipedia than Onsager's. You may wish to comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC).


 * @User: Xxanthippe. All my edits have been of good quality, because I have a high level of expertise in the areas that I edit, and all citations I added are directly relevant to the statements added. Since Smokefoot alerted me to the issue of recent self-citations, I have not added any, except in the one case of Chemical potential that you are aware of.


 * Let’s take that case as a specific example. You had demanded that I add references to support my edits, so I did, including one self-citation that is fully justified to support a conclusion that even you as an expert were not aware of and that is not made in textbooks (and that editor Petergans has confirmed as correct). Please tell me a more important reference that makes that same scientific point, and I’ll gladly enter it; similarly in other cases. Just deleting relevant references without replacing them does not serve any reader of Wikipedia. Please leave it to other qualified editors without a personal vendetta due to a disagreement about a pet Wikipedia page to decide which citations are relevant and which are not.


 * I have been fully transparent about my identity – my username is my real name and the name under which I publish peer-reviewed articles. So there are no hidden conflicts of interest.


 * Instead of acting like an inquisitor, please focus on making Wikipedia better. I see that you have time but still have not corrected the four scientific errors (confirmed as such by editor Petergans) that you had re-introduced on Chemical potential. Please direct your energy to Wikipedia content corrections.


 * Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No matter what level of expertise editors have (and it is rumored that some Nobel prize winners edit Wikipedia), they are expected to follow Wikipedia conventions like WP:Conflict of interest. Now that your conduct has had attention drawn to it on this page, Wikipedians may want to know what procedures you intend to follow in the future with WP:COI editing, and what you are going to do about the 101 violations of COI that you appear to have been responsible for in the past. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC).


 * My edits have not been disruptive. I have always respected the work of other editors, and my edits have mostly been well received. I have rarely been involved in edit conflicts. When they arose occasionally (for instance on acids, the relativistic mass of photons, and the C-C bond strength) I have always presented or contributed to compromise phrasing acceptable to the other editors involved. I have deep expertise in the areas that I edit because I teach the material at the advanced college level and even publish in these areas (for instance on chemical energy, which is not explained in textbooks or other good sources). I have made numerous valuable content corrections and contributions and not used my editing privileges primarily to add citations to my own work. All my citations have been relevant, conformed to the content policies, and been intended to verify article content.


 * Many pages to which I have contributed carried a banner “This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.” Wikipedia states that “academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.” The citations I’ve added were to peer-reviewed publications, have been seen by many other Wikipedia editors who made subsequent changes to the pages in question, and have not caused problems. In numerous cases, the citations have been reformatted by other editors. The Wikipedia community has clearly accepted these citations as useful.


 * To avoid any appearance of COI, I can commit to adding no self-citations in the next three years (2022-2024). Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr. There is a COI matter with which you may be involved. Also @User:Smokefoot. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC).

References for First Law of Thermodynamics
Just a note to tell you that I have fixed your citation for the Gislason and Craig article. You had written "ref name Gislason & Craig 2005", which the system rejected with the message "Cite error: The tag has too many names". This means that the system does not allow spaces inside a ref name, and apparently reads Gislason, &, Craig and 2005 as 4 separate ref names!! AnomieBOT produced another incorrect version, so I went back to yours and just removed the spaces, and also added an = after ref name. I fixed all 3 citations to this reference, and they are correctly shown now. Dirac66 (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Photosynthesis
This is just to let you know I've reverted this edit of yours. I think I've explained why on the talk page, which is where further discussion of this, if any is required, should probably go. IpseCustos (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Heat of combustion has an RFC
Heat of combustion has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. IpseCustos (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"High-energy oxygen": articles to be edited
Hello, thanks for continuing the discussion in various forums. While you have reverted some of my changes, I notice you haven't reverted those referring to oxygen as "high-energy", an "energy source", or a storage medium of energy. I'm talking about these 56 articles, 9 of which have already been edited:


 * 1) Adenosine triphosphate "Oxygen provides the chemical energy driving the process"
 * 2) Allotropes of oxygen "the chemical energy stored in the weak sigma bond of atmospheric dioxygen"
 * 3) Anaerobic organism "taking advantage of the high energy of O2"
 * 4) Anaerobic respiration: lede "molecular oxygen is a high-energy oxidizing agent"
 * 5) Atmosphere of Earth "oxygen is the high-energy molecule needed to power all complex life-forms"
 * 6) Bioenergetic systems "the energy of oxygen"
 * 7) Bioenergetics "energy sources, mostly sunlight and O2"
 * 8) Bioluminescence "molecular oxygen, which provides chemical energy"
 * 9) Cambrian explosion "which need O2 for its chemical energy"
 * 10) Cellular respiration: lede "the most common oxidizing agent providing most of the chemical energy is molecular oxygen"
 * 11) Chemical energy: lede "Some examples of storage media of chemical energy include [...] oxygen gas, which is of relatively high energy"
 * 12) Chemical thermodynamics "the energy (mostly of O2)"
 * 13) Chemosynthesis "oxygen or nitrate as an energy source"
 * 14) Chemotroph "obtaining most of their energy from O2"
 * 15) Citric acid cycle "with the energy of O2"
 * 16) Electron acceptor "to a high-energy electron acceptor"
 * 17) Electron transport chain "releases the energy of oxygen"
 * 18) Energy content of biofuel "mostly the energy of the O2 consumed"
 * 19) Energy density "the oxygen that provides most of the energy released in combustion"
 * 20) Energy development "solar energy stored in O2"
 * 21) Energy flow (ecology) "Most energy is stored in plants and oxygen"
 * 22) Exothermic reaction "most of the energy released was stored in O2"
 * 23) Fermentation "It releases the chemical energy of O2"
 * 24) Geological history of oxygen "O2, a high-energy molecule"
 * 25) Great Oxidation Event "oxygen is a high-energy molecule"
 * 26) Heterotroph "the energy of O2"
 * 27) History of life "due to its [oxygen's] chemical energy"
 * 28) Hydrogen oxidizing bacteria "oxygen as final electron acceptor and source of energy"
 * 29) Hypoxia (environmental) "rely on oxygen for its chemical energy"
 * 30) Hypoxia in fish: lede "the chemical energy of O2"
 * 31) Indirect calorimetry "the chemical energy of oxygen and nutrients"
 * 32) Light-dependent reactions: lede "oxygen as a high-energy waste product"
 * 33) Lithotroph "unlock the chemical energy of O2"
 * 34) Luciferin "molecular oxygen, which provides the needed energy"
 * 35) Metabolism "high-energy electron acceptors such as oxygen"
 * 36) Methanotroph: lede "unlock the energy of oxygen"
 * 37) Microbial fuel cell: lede "high-energy oxidized compounds such as oxygen"
 * 38) Microbial metabolism "unlock the chemical energy of O2"
 * 39) Microbial oxidation of sulfur "energy-rich electron acceptors"
 * 40) Muscle contraction "chemical energy (originally of oxygen, unlocked by fat or glucose"
 * 41) Nitrobacter "O2 as a source of energy"
 * 42) Ocean deoxygenation "oxygen for its chemical energy"
 * 43) Oxidative phosphorylation: lede "more energy (provided by oxygen)"
 * 44) Oxygen: lede "Dioxygen provides most of the chemical energy released in combustion"
 * 45) Photosystem "creating high-energy oxygen as a byproduct"
 * 46) Redox "use oxygen as electron acceptor and the main source of energy"
 * 47) Primary nutritional groups "Both use oxygen in respiration as electron acceptor and the main source of energy"
 * 48) Wet sulfuric acid process fixed June 9 "The energy released by the above-mentioned reactions is mostly derived from O2"
 * 49) Oxygen saturation fixed June 9 "oxygen, their source of chemical energy"
 * 50) Animal fixed June 9 "unlock the chemical energy of molecular oxygen"
 * 51) Dioxygen in biological reactions: lede fixed June 9 fixed further June 10 "the chemical energy of oxygen" "high-energy O2"
 * 52) Fuel fixed June 9  "Most of the chemical energy released in combustion was not stored in the chemical bonds of the fuel, but in the weak double bond of molecular oxygen"
 * 53) Aerobic organism fixed June 9 "the chemical energy stored in the relative weak double bond of oxygen"
 * 54) Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide fixed June 9 "the energy stored in the relatively weak double bond of oxygen"
 * 55) Dead zone (ecology) fixed June 9 "switch their energy source from oxygen"
 * 56) Fatty acid metabolism: lede fixed June 9 "unlock the energy of more O$2$"

Is it okay to fix the remaining 47, as well?

Thanks, and sorry for the long message (feel free to delete it if it overwhelms your talk page).

IpseCustos (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Like most Wikipedia editors, I do seriously consider other editors’ opinions and viewpoints, and often it is not appropriate to just revert changes another editor has made, for instance because the relevance of the disputed statement is debatable. Some of the nine articles you mentioned fall in this category. We can take the lede of photosynthesis as a specific example. The statement about the energy of oxygen fit into the context of the sentence that had been there before my edit and the statement is true scientifically, based on textbook principles of weak bonds and chemical energy, but it may not be essential. A more targeted edit (e.g. just removing “three times”) would have seemed like a better approach, but the deletion did not leave an apparent conceptual gap.
 * So in some cases, the flagged statement might be considered dispensable. The sentence in “Animal” may be an example. But elsewhere ‘fixing’ could mean making edits other than just wholesale deletions. In some cases it may be possible to refer to “the chemical energy of food molecules and oxygen” together (textbook principles do show clearly that chemical energy is stored in the weak bonds of the reactants of a combustion or aerobic-respiration reaction). Or maybe something like “due to its weak double bond, oxygen contributes chemical energy”? If you have phrasing suggestions that somehow include oxygen as an energetically important reactant, for instance in aerobic respiration of glucose where oxygen obviously contributes the energy for at least 22 of the 30 ATP formed, and are consistent with your worldview, please let me know.
 * If you give me four days, I will look through the statements on your list and try to propose revised phrasing that might be agreeable to you. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the chemical energy of food molecules and oxygen together
 * That is a good suggestion. I have no objection to that turn of phrase.
 * due to its weak double bond, oxygen contributes chemical energy
 * No. That is as bad as ever.
 * Unfortunately, what you have done so far appears to be to add new references mid-way through your existing statements and claim they support your synthesis of new statements. That's not the right way to go about this, and I propose we seek dispute resolution at this point. IpseCustos (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I really think it would be better if you stopped and discussed which wordings are acceptable (or used the wording above) rather than replacing one unacceptable version by another.
 * If you prefer discussing this in a different central venue rather than in Talk:Oxygen, please let me know, but I'm not going to open 57 individual discussions repeating the same arguments.
 * Please remember discussion to establish consensus is the priority, not editing the articles as quickly as possible. IpseCustos (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there is now an RfC open about this specific question, I believe it would be more productive for you to participate in that discussion than to continue editing a large number of articles. I will also refrain from editing the articles as long as productive discussion is taking place.
 * Please be aware that even if we agree on factually accurate wording, it may still be best to remove the claim because it is not helpful to the article, too long, or improperly sourced. IpseCustos (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there is now an RfC open about this specific question, I believe it would be more productive for you to participate in that discussion than to continue editing a large number of articles. I will also refrain from editing the articles as long as productive discussion is taking place.
 * Please be aware that even if we agree on factually accurate wording, it may still be best to remove the claim because it is not helpful to the article, too long, or improperly sourced. IpseCustos (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Oxygen has an RFC
Oxygen has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. IpseCustos (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please give a link. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC).
 * I tried to fix the rfc notice template invocation to include a link. Please let me know whether that worked IpseCustos (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. IpseCustos (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss controversial COI changes on the talk page instead of simply reverting their removals
As you did here.

I know it's frustrating, but discussion is the only way (well, the only way either one of us can possibly want) to get out of this mess. Once you have arrived at a suggestion you consider to be good, I'll either agree to it or you are free to start an RfC to convince the community at large that it should be done that way.

Given the circumstances, this absolutely needs to happen on talk pages, not in the live article. Please remember the D in WP:BRD.

IpseCustos (talk) 13:26, 15 June 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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)