User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2009

Solubility Values
Hi Smokefoot, I am adding just a few solubility values to important chemicals - I am not going to add any more. I think the information is useful. There is a precedent for this see the entry for NaCl and the chembox template is already set up for adding this data. The source is: http://onschallenge.wikispaces.com/ --Romney (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Let me get back to you with comments from the experts in this field. I have an email in to them. --Romney (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your last message to me: "Although I am sure that this school project was fun for the kids, Wikipedia needs to have data here from verifiable sources. Reference to a university site (Oral Roberts or Harvard) is not good enough. Otherwise your work risks being deleted. NIST, CRC etc, now they are authorities. I really encourage you to consult someone before launching on what looks like a well intentioned but naively planned project."

I received a reply from the expert chemistry professor about your comments:

"Those are some fairly nasty comments. I think I would trust our Sitemeter and Analytics more than this guy about the interest in solubility.  The elephant in the room of course is that it is pretty much just our data that have references on the chemboxes. And there are actually not that many common organic solvents - the ones we have been using cover a good part of the range"

My two cents addressing the points in your comments: The experiments were not done by kids. The were all done by adults (chemistry majors and graduate students under the supervision of a chemistry professor). The data were then peer reviewed by a panel of experts: http://onschallenge.wikispaces.com/judges who have access to the lab notebooks. So I would say the data are more reliable than the other data in the chemboxes, st least from the point of verifiability.--Romney (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a biophysicist with limited (but existing) experience in determining chemical solubilities and I wish to add that the Open Notebook Science project discussed here (with which I am not involved but familiar) is among the most reliable sources you can find for this sort of data, precisely because all the experiments are being conducted in a way that emphasizes transparency of the procedures and reproducibility of the results much more than is usual in this field (or any other, for that matter). -- -- Daniel Mietchen 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Smokefoot:


 * I thought you might be interested in my results -- I may try for a paper in Phys Chem A. H2SiF6 crystallizes out of anhydrous HF at around 200K.  Xray diffraction shows tetragonal crystal structure, 4/M 2/M 2/M, with Si to Si distance about 297 pm.  It was a lot of fun setting up to work with anhydrous HF, and building teflon everything for the Rigaku X-ray unit.  So a molecule it's not, but it does form crystals. Norm Reitzel (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

vanadic acid
You are perfectly correct that vanadic acid has limited existence. Look at acid dissociation constant for the gory details. The pKa2 value is an extrapolated value. The concentration of H3VO4 is rather low because pKa1 > pKa2 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm wrong. I mean Butyl acetate, my apologies. It was changed last night by an IP to butyl ethanoate, with the person insisting that was the correct IUPAC name. Since you're much more familiar with nomenclature than I am, I wanted to ask your opinion on what is the correct IUPAC name. I found this source which states it is butyl acetate, so I believe the change made was incorrect. --Chasingsol(talk) 03:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rubidium iodide
Hi, thanks for spotting my error in the iodides template, very embarrassing V8rik (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: ZnO references, conductive polymers, primary sources
Thank you for comment. I realize the controversial nature of my inclusion of review links to ZnO, but. The quality of information in ZnO article is low; I sporadically edited wrong claims, but didn't have enough time for a proper re-writing. Instead, I gave a proper guide for those who want to read more. As you said, there are many thousands of ZnO papers, and selecting first-read ones is not easy for a beginner. The review selection is incomplete, but not occasional - those are high-quality, (potentially) highly cited, recent, large, review papers (they should be treated as "book chapters", but with on-line access; unfortunately, access to most books is very poor, and I advocate that acceptable, especially free-download, journal references are preferred). There is a handful of those. If authors of every new review will start adding their article then this could become a danger, but we are not there yet. NIMSoffice (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for useful information. Please continue wherever possible. I shall quickly rewrite ZnO (i.e. replacing, not reformulating). Priority problems (conductive polymer) are intrinsically more difficult for me (though I am asking colleagues on this issue right now). They fall out of Exact Sciences into History and should be treated as such, clearly separating them into a separate section or perhaps a separate article. The scientific content of an article should not suffer from priority disputes. In most cases, the only scientific contribution of the first articles is to draw attention to the field. It is a pity to observe Wikipedia becoming a major vehicle for journalist-style priority claims (e.g. "Seaborg has discovered transuranuim elements" - even an amateur should understand that one person can not possibly do that). Best wishes.NIMSoffice (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for comment on primary sources, I will reply on the talk page of my talk page. You wrote "There are several excellent general sources on materials science that we can list for you, if you are unfamiliar with this area". You are right on time here. ZnO GA nomination has failed because of lacking citations on the production. Would you be so kind as to recreate those citations. If it is not you who wrote that part then please let me know and I will fix that my way. Best wishes. NIMSoffice (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No comments at GAN, please
Hi -- you shouldn't insert comments directly at WP:GAN -- that page is purely organizational. I have moved your comments to the correct places. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we collaborate?
I would like for us to be able to work side by side productively despite not getting off to a good start so far. I know you have criticized me for over citing things (or alleged POV), and i have criticized you for what i thought might be censorship. do you still have issues with my editing/contributions? -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there and thanks for the note. I do Wiki purely as sport and stress-reliever, and I usually strive to avoid tension, hence my disengagement from the F-chem business.  Safety-toxicity-health-environmental issues are too subjective for my tastes. Later,--Smokefoot (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

style
Hello Smokefoot I was reading your comments here and following right along until I saw your concluding sentence, "There are several excellent general sources on materials science that we can list for you, if you are unfamiliar with this area." IMHO, you should have just listed a few sources you had in mind because it could be interpreted as very offensive by the reader to imply ignorance on the part of the contributor. IMHO, sometimes your well put statements are, IMHO, concluded with statements can be interpreted as offensive, thus mitigating the positive impact of your words. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have learned that written words can sound far more negative to the recipient than to their author. In the case of the NIMSoffice author, my comments were intended to be critical because I think that his/her actions are too unilateral.  If they know so much, then they have good sources.  If they dont know much, then  they are simply reproducing titles from recent specialized sources, which anyone can do.  The net effect of such specialized literature is negative in my opinion because many readers will assume good faith and decent scholarship (breadth of perspective). But dont take me wrong - I do appreciate your cautionary words.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

NaF and the conspiracy that we are guilty of
I must admit that I was starting to lose patience... and I'm a patient guy. Thanks for rounding it out, but you may be in for a serve of guilt-inducing rhetoric yourself now. Happy trails :) Freestyle-69 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannula transfer
Heya Smokefoot

In response to your comment about WP:NOT. I find myself guilty of what I have been advising other editors not to be. I've trimmed the article a bit, such that it is more descriptive than prescriptive. What are your thoughts on the current article? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article looks fine to me. I sensed that it was getting close to becoming a users guide, but it looks like you've tweaked it since then. Thanks for taking my suggestion constructively. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CpNa
Hey Smokefoot

Thanks for your help there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of pharmacology articles
I started WP:PHARM:CAT in hopes of providing better guidance regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. If available, I have posted an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chrome alum
Hi smokefoot, I have a question. Do you know how chrome alum is produced in industrial scale? One lab procedure is given somewhere where you reduce the dichromate solution with ethanol, but I do not know if this is also done in industry. Thanks --Stone (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now it looks much better. --Stone (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In case not watchlisted, take a look at my edit to prevent contradiction. Might overstate Ullman's FYI. -Shootbamboo (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

CHEMMOS
Hi Smokefoot

The version to edit is the draft here: Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft. WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines will just be retired. Sorry for the confusion! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi SF

Once again, I apologize for all the confusion. I told Walkerma that I'd tidy it up before we started discussing, but I was kind of tied up. The main page (Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft) is supposed to house a few nutshells. The nuts should be in the subpages. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions
I just came across this and it reminded me to say thank you for all your excellent additions to WP. I for one thoroughly appreciate your textbook-quality writing and diagrams and no-nonsense attitude, especially with soapboxers. You are one of the main editors whose writing gives readers like me a better insight into which ideas actually matter in chemistry, and which facts are just fluff. You also highlight some unusual and interesting chemistry that undergrads like me might otherwise never find out about. I particularly like your attitude that editing WP is a hobby and not worth getting het up about.

Just thought it was high time you got some thanks.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

DMAP
Hi SF

I've turned your text reaction into this: File:Preparation_of_DMAP.png. Since I don't have the original source, can you tell me if it's right? Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldnt see the graphic with my Camino browser, but with Safari I can. I've never had that problem.  Thanks for making this helpful change, the former line equations were clumsy.  --Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Element project
Hey, I mentioned this project to the Chemistry and Element portal pages. I got almost no responses, but the ones I got were in favor of this. It's not really compound-related per se, more anion-related and as a tool to expand try to expand these pages. Thricecube (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Odie5533 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your jab that people contributing to the Lipoic acid page aren't "real biochemists" was uncalled for and counter productive. Qchristensen (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, I guess I took it too personally... Qchristensen (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done
In expanding organoiodine compounds out from a stub! -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Suggestion
I will take your suggestion and post in the WP:Chemicals category. And don't worry, my edits are in good faith :) Thricecube (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Conductive polymer edits
As you know, extensive edits such as the one you just did on conductive polymers should be discussed first. I am particularly concerned that you removed several important cites, including a review on the history of conductive polymers. Also, the "emphasis on melanins" is because the various polymer blacks have always been called melanins.Pproctor (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes. I reorganized several aspects of the article more along the lines that are discussed in college-level introductions to organic materials.  It's a large area and many kinds of materials could in principle be included, but I have never seen any mention of melanins in any class or research lecture.  The emphasis in industry and in academia is on materials derived from well-defined precursors. Ullmann's Encyclopedia on Industrial Chemistry has a nice article on the materials and applications (no mention of melanins) if you are looking for sources and have access to that source.  If you are looking for suggestions of places to edit, the greatest gap is in the section on LED's where I think most of the technology (that touches readers) should be.  Also it would be helpful discuss the concept of processibility (solubility, moldability) as well as "molecular engineering" where substituents are employed to tune the gap, mobility, and processibility.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Historically, the polymer blacks were originally known as "melanins".  In fact, the base compound, polyacetylene, is made by certain fungi.   Can't get more characterized than pure polyacetylene.


 * Much of the original work on the electronic, etc. characteristics (e.g., photoconductivity) of such compounds was first done by melanin researchers.  Reason is that,  back in the day,  melanin researchers were about the only ones who had any practical reason to look at such things, melanin being an important biological pigment that likely plays a role in a bunch of diseases.  So this is an important part of the history.


 * Believe it or not, many persons consult wikipedia for the historical context. YMMV,  naturally, and you may have no personal interest.  But this is no reason to so severely cut "history" sections.  The two chapters I cite are from reference works on conductive polymers.  It is a common practice to put such chapters in reference works.  It does not particularly surprise me that industrial references, etc. do not cite any of this, any more than the melanin literature cites the industrial literature,  which is actually pretty sparse.Pproctor (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In answer to your comments: It is not I who reright history.  I and others have noted that Shirkawa et al were not the first to show a high conductivity state in the polyacetylenes. I have merely documented this.  e.t., I recently gave a cite to a history of the field written by an important figure who says the same thing.   As the title notes with respoect to this very issue "There is nothing new under the Sun.


 * I had also previously given another cite to a book chapter on the history of conductive organic polymers which reflects this. For unaccountable reasons, you have removed this reference.  You may not like the cites,  but they are real.  I again offer you the opportunity to contest them.   Otherwise,  you are committing the sin of NOR and substituting your personal opinion for clearly referenced facts.


 * In general, wikipedia encourages input from people like me,  who "know the references".  It is true that as a graduate student,  I was a member of one at least three research groups who reported high conductivity in an organic polymer before Shirakawa et al.   But,  we were no better than third and so have no real dog in this fight.Pproctor (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Conducting polymers
There is a Wikipedia "heavy artillery" that we can bring out if needed. We've used it before in chemistry-related cases but, by definition, it's heavy, it doesn't move quickly, and it doesn't always hit where we would like it to. This situation seems to have been going on long enough that we should at least consider the pros and the cons of opening the discussion to a wider group of editors. Physchim62 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arsenic pentasulfide and other comments
I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for, but I have a few references about this compound. The PubChem ID number I posted links to the PubChem page for this item. The book I reference is fairly new, from 2004/5 I believe and it has about 50 references within it for each compound in the book. It's accuracy is looks to be pretty good - I cross-referenced it with some more well-known sources and the information from it hardly deviates from the other sources. Here's a link to a page on google books about it if you want to have a look at it Thricecube (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thallium(I) oxide
Good note. Sure, Thallium(I) oxide is the proper name for that page. I've done all moves and redirects. Please fix if I missed something. Organic chemical pages are still in a very poor state. I'm going around randomly (looking for info for pages I write) and find major errors in every single page. Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your user page, the link to "right great wrongs" is dead, and I actually disagree that WP is a poor place for that. At least, I'm doing all I can to fix wrong claims - see my user page (A side note, quite some time ago you've asked me on homage to McGinness regarding Organic metal. I asked aroud but couldn't get a conclusive answer; thus no judgment for now). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

TFA
Thanks for removing the natural product category. I was about to do the same, but decided to give the benefit of the doubt this time... --Itub (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If of interest, page 5 of this presentation cites some literature that could have led to this category. I've been meaning to incorporate this source into some articles. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting slide show. Looks like a good fit to your agenda. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hexamine edits
I have no complaints about your edits; please feel free to edit the page as you see fit. However, I believe that readers (especially non-chemists) benefit from having the chemical formula in the lead section; I see the infobox as being mainly directed to chemists. Also, in high school I knew this compound as "hexamethylenetetramine"; perhaps that name is common enough to deserve a mention in the lead section. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC) PS. Note that the POV-ray image is already displayed at the top of the infobox. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Octaphosphazene
Hi, thanks for the comments. As for the octaphosphazene page, if I believe the old article by H. N. Stokes the two species can be isolated ad are quite stable on their own, so they must be placed in two separate articles (with separate infoboxes and such). It is not like phloroglucinol (whose existence I just learned yesterday) where the two species apparently cnnot be isolated (can they be?). As for my tastes, chemistry was my favorite hobby when I was a teenager. Life made a computer scientist out of me, but wikipedia gave me the chance to enjoy that hobby again, at least virtually. Needless to say, I reserve the right to only "work" with substances that are really fun! (For example, in the late 80s I got into a debate on the sci.space Usenet about whether carbon-hydrogen polymers were essential to life. Within that discussion I asked whether carbon monoxide polymers would be stable at low temperatures, but never got an answer. So, 20 years later, it was quite a pleasure to find all those weird oxocarbons in googleland...) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not feel strongly about this issue, but why not have all three articles --- hexachlorotriphosphazene, octachlorotetraphosphazene, and cyclic phosphazene chlorides? Then the properties and discussions that are common to both will go in the third article, and those that are specific to each chemical (such as the infoboxes) will go in each article.  There are plenty of examples of this arrangement, in chemistry and other areas (e.g. ketene, Brassicaceae, coordinate system, Dutch-based creole languages, etc.).  This arrangement actually helps editing since it removes the need for absolute consistency. (Eg., if we give the Foobar Constant and thiotimoline addition reactions for (Cl2PN)3 but not for (Cl2PN)4, no one will miss them.) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Trimethylolpropane phosphite
Hi there Smokefoot.

Would you like to make a 2D structure for Trimethylolpropane phosphite? I'd do it myself, but you're better at it.

Ben (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Nonstoichiometric compound
You have left a very friendly, but a bit unclear message on my talk page. Which of my ongoing efforts are appreciated ? Plasma Physics shouldn't count as its just a flash, I took him first as a serious trouble (he was quick on reverting), but he is not. I've briefly looked at Nonstoichiometric compound, it seems a semi-abandoned page, what was your idea of reviving it ? Incidentally, I was going to update FeS (iron(II) sulfide), which is a very representative case of a nonstoichiometric compound (i.e. a true nightmare :-), but I start to understand this material). BTW, thanks a lot for your copyedits (ZnO, boron nitride, etc.). Boron nitride got GA. Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Propylene oxide
Hi, thanks for the nice words about the oxocarbon page. As for propylene oxide, I don't feel strongly about the naming issue, and won't oppose the move back. However, please consider that WP articles are to be written for general readers; they should be more like Scientific Amrican than the typical scientific journal or trade magazine. While established inconsistencies in the nomenclature are no problem for chemists, they may confuse those readers (like me) who are not in the field. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Selenites
Hi. Thanks for helping me improve Sodium selenite. I have proposed moving Selenite to Selenite (mineral) and moving Selenite (disambiguation) to the ambiguous base name. See here here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Done, except some disambiguating of incoming links to Selenite. --Una Smith (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Chem edits
Hi there, I received an unclear message from you on my talk page re chemical edits, are you suggesting I should check all my edits with wikiproject chemicals? I mainly edit toxicology related stuff and I added a small amount on the toxicology of Sulfuryl fluoride in its safety section per guidelines and made half a dozen edits adding references and some symptoms following poisoning to DEG. I do not think that really qualifies as large scale changes/edits to various chemicals. Let me know if you want to clarify what you meant. Cheers M r Bungle |  talk  00:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for letting me know, I didn't want to step on anyone’s toes; I think the best solution is, as you said, to spin off articles related to toxicology such as CO and CO poisoning (if there is enough information to start a new article), another good example is ethylene glycol and ethylene glycol poisoning, I think DEG could be done similarly to EG as its toxicity section is getting rather large and cumbersome. Anyway I might get around to that someday :). Cheers M r Bungle |  talk  03:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nitric Acid, NFPA
When I looked at the revision you made on Nitric acid, I noticed the NFPA values in the chembox, and found it difficult to credit that it is not classed as an oxidizer, and that reactivity (NFPA-R) was zero. I went looking, and all sources that I have checked agree with this. I can't help but shake my head; bureaucrats are nuts. Are the European hazard phrases better? Physchem62 tells me that the entire European system is scheduled for overhall in the next year or so. I've been ... cooperating with my safety department, and spending 30% of my time for the last two months just adding NFPA numbers to their database. As you might guess, I consider this to be a giant waste of time. Any ideas on what a more rational system might be? Norm Reitzel (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie


Materialscientist has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Molybdopterin
While GA reviewing molybdenum, I've got a stupid question: where is Mo in File:MoPterin.png (cf. File:Molybdopterin.svg)? Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1,2-Dichloroethane
It may be simply a typo (omission) in your recent edit. Look for the string "when when" - something clearly is missing. Filterbob (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfa invitation
I was nominated for administrator position and would appreciate your comments here. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

== Saw your note on my talpage. A "Highly Hazardous Chemical" is a classification given by OSHA for highly reactive and/or toxic substances. . If you dont think it deserves space here, I could stop the categorization and delete the material. Thanks. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: 9-BBN
Replied on my talk page. – ABCD✉ 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: WF6
Thanks for comments - they are always welcome! Notes: I write for DYK a bit differently than, e.g., for GA/FA (which I stopped doing actually). My current philosophy is that DYK is a great tool to promote science. Thousands of viewers come to read the page and I try not to disappoint them by "overly boring science" - that's why popularizing and adding somewhat irrelevant details. Regarding WF6, it is probably the heaviest gas (couldn't get a reference on that - same problem with Clerici solution, which is probably the heaviest aqueous solution), and I'm sure people want to know why - that's why adding that bit on ReF6. Regarding WH6 - it was fun for me to learn the symmetry lowering (even if we know it can happen, it is never obvious when it actually does happen) and to add to the article. I believe that symmetry topic is worth discussing in more detail, but perhaps elsewhere. Thus the answer is - I see no right or wrong here, but just trying to make writing interesting, both to me an the reader (keeping in mind WP:RS, etc., guidelines :).

I'm not specialist in organometallics, thus I can help with formatting, pictures, etc., but hardly much more. I occasionally work with metal carbonyls though and might be interested to add some material there. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I recall UF6 being relatively volatile, and it's certainly heavier, but it's not a gas at RT, so strictly speaking it might to comparable to WF6. According to our article on it, under atmospheric pressure it sublimes at 56.5C. Yilloslime T C  00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the philosophy for articles is probably very different from DYK. The articles are not textbooks (i.e. not instruction, modest contextualization), but are concise pools of pertinent information.  In general the lead (or lede) paragraph should mention the most interesting aspect (usually an application or property), but otherwise the rest of the article aims at the  information at the risk of being a little dry.  If the compound is somewhat boring (very subjective, I like "boring" compounds for example), then we describe its boring aspects without apologies.  Thousands of young eyes might be impressed by DYK, but readers of chem articles should expect pure knowledge, weighted according to some external measure of significance (usually usefulness conceptually or commercially).  We could expand this discussion on the Chem Talk page if you want greater participation of the editors.--Smokefoot (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm .. I understand and suggest: let us keep a balance, i.e. writing proper science (i.e. solid reliable facts), but trying to make it accessible to as many people as possible. I have quite some experience at my WP:RCP that we get hundreds of requests to explain things better, for example in the elements articles. Materialscientist (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We all need to be reminded about accessibility, so your comments are 100% appropriate.  But accessibility can be compromised by efforts to be "interesting," which leads to tangential information that can be distracting.  Also attempts to be "interesting" can lead to OR and POV issues.  Good luck with your editing.
 * Hey Yilloslime: I thought that we had a fluoride article on the MF6's? My impression is that volatility is completely a function of symmetry and polarization of the M-F bonds, which is probably an electronegativity issue.  I don't think that WF6 is the place to discuss general aspects of MFn volatility since the three of us certainly cant write authoritatively - yet!--Smokefoot (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My response on petrochemicals
I responded to your comment on Petrochemicals on my Talk page#Petrochemicals. H Padleckas (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "organic compound"
Hi Smokefoot, you say "I slashed your definitional section in organic chemistry." Oh well. I cannot really complain. I only tried to clarify and complete the discussion that was already there, but I agree that it ended up too long and dangeroulsy close to WP:OR. I have restored the initial sentence, about the organic/inorganic division having been retained only as a tool for organizing the knowledge etc.; it seems important to stress that point, especially for non-chemist readers. Also it seems important to point out that many "organic" compounds of today (such as dodecahedrane) have absolutely nothing to do with "organisms", not even in some vague theoretical/structural sense. Presumably there should be a separate article on the history of the 'organic compound' concept, where the various attempts at definition and controversies are explored in detail. But that article should be written by experts, based on actual sources --- and not on speculations and vague recollections, as my essay admittedly was. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Petrochemical
If you are interested in the Petrochemical article, see my remarks in Talk:Petrochemical. H Padleckas (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

About Petrochemicals
Have you read my response at User talk:Mbeychok to your question about the Petrochemicals article? The WP article needs a complete re-write.

Attempting to list every single petrochemical (defined as chemicals produced from the hydrocarbons in petroleum and natural gas) would require a list of literally many hundreds, if not thousands. A list of representative examples such as in the CZ article is good enough. mbeychok (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:ZnS
That was a vandal (hard to tell sometimes). Thanks - for some mysterious reason ZnS wasn't on my watchlist. Materialscientist (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Coordination complex
It is all right to ask if a compound is real. I placed the image on Coordination complex because it is nice and clear. You might ask the maker on Commons. I have no problem with replacing by another suitable image. If the platinum(IV) coordination complex is real it could be adapted.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing journals
Hi. Er, um, what article are you referring to? I admit that I have no clue about which references are better than which. Besides, often it is already hard enough to find *a* reference... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. My philosophy has been that "any reference is better than no reference".  I usually get the data for my WP articles from papers and books that I find through Google.  I generally read through the articles that I cite (my university subscribes to many of them, so I can get the full PDF), enough to make sure that they do say what I say they say.  But I confess that in some cases I read only the abstract, because that is all I have access to: this is the case of Wiley journals and many Springer ones (including the Journal of Applied Electrochemistry).  Occasionally I also lift historical refs (Berzelius, Wöhler, etc) from later articles, but those I can usually check too because they are out of copyright and have been scanned by Google. Methinks that citing the source where I got the information from is generally a positive thing.  Even if the reference is not reliable, or if I mis-cited it, a specialist editor who reviews the article should find it helpful to know where I got that bullshit from. Does this make sense?  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Organic chemistry
I have noted your extensive contribution to the above article and noted the significant expansion of the property section. What troubled me, when I was thinking doing the same earlier that we cannot really talk about it in general terms. The properties are different according to their states of aggregation depending on ambient conditions. It is apparent that the authors of Ref.5 detail the physical poperties as they relate to the identification of the individual molecules. They point out that in general terms the molecular structure and the covalent bond which causes the difference in the properties of inorganics and organics. For this reason the physical propereties ought to be discussed after a brief introduction into the molecular structure. I have not read your edit through thoroughly, but I am not certain if you brought this point out. Putting Properties at the beginning of the article seems to emphasize the belief of a differences between the properties of organic and inorganic compound in general terms, whereas there are great differences between the properties among the organic molecules themselves (compare methane and fullerenes as extremes) For this reason I disagree with your revolutionary idea of putting this section at the beginning of the article. I like your re-write in general, but I would have left the History section at the beginning, not just because this is a tradition in many books and articles in lots of subjects, but also because it sets out at the start how Organic Chemistry came to being. The naming and classification of the compounds seems help in the definition, and it would be more logical to put it near the beginning to expand on the brief definition of the Introduction. Kind regards, LouisBB (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the points you make. Greatest respect for your improvement of the Properties section.


 * My experience is that traditionally history comes first, because it tells you how you arrived at the present state of the subject, and anecdotal deviations make the subject lighter, (my few lines on Alexander Fleming were edited out) but I admit that ours has become a bit too long; perhaps it should be shortened, with a longer additional article on its history.


 * For me the order of the sections is more logical in the cited reference (Richard F. and Sally J. Daley, Organic Chemistry, Online organic chemistry textbook.http://www.ochem4free.info, and if not already done your physical properties section ought to be preceded by a brief on the chemical bonding, as in the cited Internet book. I was just surprised by the reorganization you made. I would love to spend more time on this article, it is one of my favourite interests, but for other needs. There are also much better experts to tackle this part of the subject efficiently than me. I also hate fighting and reversions, especially as the article is improving greatly. Kind regards, LouisBB (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if anything in the above is inappropriate. I have been overtaken with events.LouisBB (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Drop me an email?
Hi SF

I was hoping you could advise me on a personal matter. As you don't have email enabled, could you drop me an email, such that we can get in touch? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Biohydrogen
Hello Smokefoot, I am a new Wiki's editor and recently I edited the page [Biohydrogen], which you later re-edit and took out much content. Can you explain the reasons why you deleted most of the content and I don't know if you realize that you made some citation error as you re-edit the page.

I just want to know reason why, I don't mind the correction on the page. But let me know. 3l1t1st (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC).