User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2023

Fluoride paper
I tend to think of you as being very interested in this sort of stuff, so I thought I'd flag it. Also, Happy New Year. Project Osprey (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Question abt Russian wiki chemical page
When I look for sources of a chemical compound, let's say manganese(III) chloride, I sometimes go to another language Wikipedia. However, when I go to the Russian article, most do not have even one source. Why might this be? Keres🌕Luna edits! 04:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm Russian and I can tell you there are in fact sources provided under "Литература" headings. Many articles in Russian wiki are translated from corresponding ones in English. They don't use cite tags necessarily everywhere. And telling you otherwise — the russian wikipedia is a huge pile of mess. Best.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 07:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In chemistry, English and German Wikipedias are more complete than other languages. The reason is probably complex and cultural. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Tamman and Hüttig temperature
Hey yo bud. Thought would be nice to have some eyes on that article (i.e. Tamman and Hüttig temperature). I wrote it a while ago. Would be cool if you take a look. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 07:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I am happy to debate articles on chemicals, but this topic is out of my expertise. User:Dirac might be a more suitable consultant.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's flattering, thank you, but I'm afraid I don't have the expertise either...Dirac (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well despite the name it's related to very specific chemistry of solids and whatnot. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 15:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:Dirac66 can offer some expertise. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean because my username resembles that of the previous suggested expert? Sorry, but I never heard of this article subject until I saw your comment. Even though I am a retired chemistry professor. Dirac66 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now read the article and made a few suggestions on its talk page. Dirac66 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Antimony
Antimony has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  141 Pr  20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A delicate matter
Hi Smokefoot. I note that you reverted an image at Protoporphyrin IX from an editor that judging by his contributions has been adding lots of this sort of skeletal formula to chemboxes. He added that one back and I again reverted it today since I agree with you that it adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the compound. As far as I can tell, it is not even based on an X-ray structure, which might be legitimate to add in some circumstances. What would be the best venue to debate this? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Manganese
Manganese has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  141 Pr  09:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup
was quite the time-waste. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That editor seemed to be intent on proving something. What, I am unsure. We get these surges of often uneven revisions by new editors periodically, as you know. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And it turned out to be one of several socks. *sigh* DMacks (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Octafluorocubane
Hi Smokefoot, thank you for creating the Octafluorocubane article, I translated it into German. Question: Are the physico-chemical data you used from the Sugiyama Science article? Please let me know, thank you. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont know who added the data, you can figure it out by comparing versions in history. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the versions in history it was you (at least you added density and melting point :-)). No worries, I will see that I will get the Sugiyama article. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I might indeed have gotten those data from the Science report. Sorry, I have forgotten.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Nonmetal at FAC
Hi Smokefoot. Would you be in a position to comment on this FAC nomination? It has attracted some interest from a couple of other editors whose comments I've addressed. No obligation. Thank you --- Sandbh (talk) Sandbh (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Bond stretch isomer example
Hi Smokefoot,

I came across your File:Fe(picNH2)3.png example of bond-stretch isomerism, and was wondering if there is any further detail about the spin states. I looked at the cited 10.1016/S0010-8545(01)00381-2 ref, but could not locate this specific example in it. I assume (and Spin crossover takes for granted) that the difference between these two structures is high-spin vs low-spin? So I wanted to include that detail, maybe even in the image itself, but was unable to find the detail. Any leads? DMacks (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I will check, but almost certainly these two iron complex differ in spin state. Fe(II) is complicated because its not just high vs low spin, there is an intermediate spin state also (I think).  Now about bond stretch isomer appellation, I dont think that the participants in that controversy (now settled) discussed species that differed in spin as examples.  What I am trying to say is that I might have overstated (or "synthesis" in WP terminology) calling the two Fe complexes as examples of bond stretch isomers.  I am about to drop off line for a while now. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good work and thanks. The review cited by me seems not to be appropriate.  Many dozens of crystal structures on the tris picolylamine Fe(II) are in the Xray database and I gave up trying reconstruct how I devised that figure.  31 structures have been reported on the dichloride with ethanol solvate alone...  Anyhow, I posted a newer image with specific ref.  The stereochem was also incorrect on Fe. No photoisom any more although probably that was done (LIESST).--Smokefoot (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR
I have nominated Hydrochloric acid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed content
Silicon dioxide possesses the appearance of a transparent to gray powder and is completely odorless.

Can you tell me why the sentence above is removed fro article Silicon Dioxide? Thank you. Agus Damanik (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure

--Smokefoot (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * SiO2 is not gray.
 * It is odorless, like 99.999% of minerals. Odorless and completely odorless are equiv.
 * Pubchem is not a very good source.


 * Thank you. I won't use Pubchem as source later. Thank you Agus Damanik (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Aromaticity
Sorry if I interfered in your series of edits. Popped up on my watchlist and looks like a student will be working on it. I'm not sure if you saw Wiki Ed/University of Minnesota Duluth/Advanced Writing Science 2023 (Fall 2023)? Given the typical grading requirement to include cited refs, I'm going to sit back and hope they will by able to improve Mechanism of action of aspirin. Converse...I'm suspicious if they will be able to avoid triggering a WP:MED backlash at Hypokalemia. DMacks (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Green leaf volatiles
Thanks for helping to clean up Green leaf volatiles. Do you have an opinion on whether it is sufficiently iimproved to remove the flag at the top of the page? MaryMO (AR) (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on the topic. My contributions are aimed at English and pretention.  My advice is to follow your instincts and remove the flag and see what happens. Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Dithiadiazole structures
These heterocycles aren't my speciality, but this article popped up on my watchlist. The File:CSD CIF PESGOJ.jpg stacking seem to have the rings either staggered or offset, but the cited refs seem to give a preferred structure with the rings aligned. I don't have full access to CSD. Is there a literature reference associated with the CIF you used for this image? DMacks (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice that someone is paying attention! I also was worried that the image was an optical illusion of some sort.   Here are two images, one showing just the unit cell where I am querying the S---S distance between a pair of rings (which look eclipsed).  3 angstroms is not a bond, but something van der Waalsy.  Also below is an image of multiple unit cells, which is more convincing but I dont know how to edit this image with CSD to make it presentable. Maybe we should stick a cropped version latter in the article. You welcome to crop it within Commons and then replace CSD CIF PESGOJ.jpg.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible for you to export these images in the PNG format from the software you drew it? This is to avoid JPEG compression artifacts. Converting the existing JPEG images would not help much. --Leyo 19:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . I think that you have warned me about that problem previously.  I will be more careful.  JPG is the default output for the OLEX program that I use, but someone just showed me how to get png's.  --Smokefoot (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That might well be the case, but I wouldn't call it "warned". Thanks for having a look into this and for the new PNG version (that looks good). --Leyo 21:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Porphine reversions
Hello, I noticed that you reverted the edits I made to the porphine page (excepted for my removal of incorrect information recently added). Not only it reverted to the somewhat awkward and repetitive phrasing that I had improved, it also removed useful information about solubility that tied into what was already on the page. Moreover I do not see the purpose of adding some random porphyrins on a page that is for a specific compound. What was the reason for all this? -Choucas Bleu (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the revision was in my opinion misleading and difficult to read. The opening sentence of jammed with technical adjectives that would confuse most readers.  It's an organic compound first and foremost.  And all the other adjectives can be applied latter.  Porphine is not naturally occurring, and it has nothing to do with acne.  I apologize if my actions were too abrupt, but I was thinking of readers, not you when I made the edit. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the opening sentence making it unclear, to the contrary it immediately highlighted what is important about this compound, instead of bringing it on later piecemeal. I am not asking about it because my feelings were hurt, but because I genuinely feel that the readability was improved by my edit making it more concise. Also there seems to be some confusion there, I know very well that the acne part was bogus, I am the one who removed that part from the article. -Choucas Bleu (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine. Go for it.  So you think that aromaticity is a key attribute of porphine, and that readers need to know this aspect from the get-go?  Now, what exactly is aromaticity?  Huckel rule, something to do with heat of combustion, sweet-smelling, undergoes electrophilic substitution?  Beats me.  And who cares for this hypothetical species?  But have at it, no problem here (really).--Smokefoot (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Dibenzoyl peroxide crystal structure
Could you review your (PhCO₂)₂ edit? The description does not make sense possibly at several levels. Regards, —Mykhal (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . I looked at the structure and the ref and the O-O distance.  What are the problems at several levels?--Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Minute has not 90 seconds, and you probably meant different dihedral angle. —Mykhal (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, what other "several" levels does this description not make sense?--Smokefoot (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect chemical compound formula
Hello. During genuinely reverting my links, you made a typo by inserting an incorrect chemical compound formula for sodium chloride. It should be NaCl, not NaC. I just corrected your typo. Bernardirfan (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Smokefoot (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice anything?
Typical ref spamming or ref bombing indicident. Characteristics: unregistered, unindentified editor, sudden release of several edits, often narrow journals (RSC Advances, Molecules, Frontiers...), one name reappears, " Its not evil, and fairly normal human nature. But we dont want this kind of contribution in Wikipedia because the selection is not based on a balanced perspective.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Imines
 * Rose Bengal
 * N-chlorosuccinimide
 * Trichloroisocyanuric acid

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mercury (element)
Mercury (element) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)