User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2014

1733:

the same information but that leads me into the other point you mentioned, about the Inorganic section. As a reader and someone that has mainly used Knowledge for school, it seems relavant to me to include as much of the uses for a compound or an element as with fluoride isn't steelmaking or aluminium or for dental care in the big picture. The reason I even started looking it up was to look at alternative uses, but it was a little confusing the overlap between fluoride and fluorine that and the names being similar didn't help, and I made a silly mistake on my part. The inorganic section seems very relavant as I was most intrested in the inorganic properties, which does get into steel making and such, but there are so many other research sections. How do you think it would work best to include the rich diversity of an element such as F, but not include filler? I ask, only because I don't have a good answer myself. That said, maybe put the steel and aluminum section under inorganic chemistry and just have the uses divided by class of chemistry? Thank you again, --

6948:

know Wiki-guidelines. U.S. students especially seem rarely mindful that Knowledge is highly international, with the consequence that artwork can be shared over many languages, hence our encouragement that you edit your ChemDraws. Another characteristic of homeworky projects is that rather than making incremental, integrated edits, which is the way Knowledge tends to grow well, students drop a large and often self-standing essay that does not integrate well (like your compound numbers) into our exsiting content. Understandably: students are looking for a grade and they are rarely going to come back to Knowledge and "clean up after themselves." So now you know some perspectives, we wish other students did the same, but you got picked on and your classmates did not. Let us know if we can help. One way you can help is to pass on this advice to your instructor! --

6851:

context. The prof title was in the article previously. What words in the FIGURE (it's not artwork)? Guided and Innate? It lends to making the content more digestible, or that's what I understand (look at the article, they do it). I'm not writing for just those that read English, yes, but two or three words in a figure doesn't ruin it. You can say the same about color; color in a figure isn't helpful for those who are color-blind. WP is for the public, including those that aren't familiar with the subject. Hence, removing introductory information to contextualize an idea isn't conducive toward achieving that goal. Oh, and removing the figure from reaction conditions...that figure has been on the page forever. I'm still adding to the page. Also, if you're going to talk to users, take the time to check your spelling and grammar.

2917:

indecipherable, and so therefore are unreliable as encyclopedic content.". Start by editing in dribs and drabs. Target the worst parts of offending articles. A lot of this stuff is written by non-experts, so there is no problem with experts apparently like yourself just rewriting/deleting a section or two and then waiting to see how the revision is received. Typically deafening silence. The chemically fluent editors are helpful but tend to mildly avoid each other, not out of antisocial tendencies but because our interests diverge. FYI, IMHO the greatest long range challenge in Wikichem is WP:UNDUE, which arises from WP:COI and non-observance of WP:SECONDARY. Happy editing, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

1952:

information you posted regardless, as nowhere does it bar even primary sources, stating that they should be backed up by secondary sources whenever possible if making "an interpretation", which I was certainly not doing! It is common and accepted practice to cite the same article more than once on a Wiki page. And FTR, I am not at all affiliated with any of the publishers,researchers, or authors in question! The information you wantonly deleted was cited in multiple sources, is factually accurate, and widely accepted. You seem to have a minor fixation on the issues of "sourcing" and COI. I encourage you to rethink your actions in the future to avoid conflict with your fellow editors.

743:. It also says that higher alkyl groups work as well for this method. Looks to me that this sort of reaction could have industrial applications (considering aromatic substitution is a pain in the ass). The author also explains the reason for this type of synthesis "going out of style" is because petroleum's rise to dominance over the prior calcium carbide industry (and acetylene's cheaper petroleum replacement ethylene). We all know that is a problem considering that we, as a species, are rapidly depleting our oil reserves. Definitely an opportunity to invent new, cheap, "future proof" syntheses of substituted aromatics... 4242:

from Knowledge and redraw it with design in mind. Not change it or modify it at all, just redraw it. This image came from our third or fourth #ChemDrawChallenge and I liked it enough to replace the one on Knowledge. Again, I had no intention of changing the mechanism, just recreating it. So while I am a Ph.D. organic chemist, and it's true I don't have the trained eye of an organometallic chemist and didn't see the basic errors, the question behind your question is how did that original mechanism last so long on the WP page if it suffers from the same basic organometallic errors?

1903: 1876: 1558: 1462: 917: 992: 7258: 6727: 6641: 6344: 6257: 6181: 6101: 6034: 5952: 5860: 5792: 5722: 5647: 5294: 5228: 5013: 4906: 4824: 4754: 4647: 4571: 4497: 3632: 3562: 3489: 3358: 3286: 3201: 3125: 2835: 2767: 2698: 2630: 2563: 2475: 2384: 2275: 2209: 2131: 2065: 1990: 1374: 1306: 1244: 1136: 1076: 640: 576: 514: 451: 379: 315: 243: 181: 110: 48: 5459:. The statement itself was added long time before by an anonymous user, without any citation. Could you please explain what exactly have you found in this Ullmann's Encyclopedia about "low resistance against flowing liquids"? As a PhD in physical chemistry and physics I am sure, that there must be some misunderstanding, but I do not have this book nor the access to its electronic version. 4268:

Is that structure in the original on the bottom right labeled 'Unfavored TS' clear and easy to read? I'm not necessarily saying my drawing was clearer (I hope it was, that was my goal), but the point was not to add knowledge, but to add aesthetics. I wish I had the ability to correct the errors and make it more appealing, but I did not. Let's work together to accomplish both goals. --

5579: 6832:

prefer to avoid words in artwork. You are not writing for the US only, what if other language Wikis want to use the art? they are stuck with the English in many schemes. Yes, journals do that but they also copyright their artwork, Knowledge does the reverse, we share our artwork. For many Wiki readers, English is not their language of choice. See this

3959:...wanted to call your attention to my shading of your entries. This is being done, so new editors comments are not lost in the sea of counter-discourse between Boghog and I. Doing so makes the new comments and questions easier to find, and easier to refer to. Since we get along fine, I am going to assume it is alright, but just ping me / say here if it is 6804:

active research for developing new methods for C-H activation as well as using available methods, so I'm not being "gullible". The slides are cited, what's the issue with that? You can find them on google. I'm still fixing up the page, adding explanations, more examples and am reworking the page entirely. Thanks,

3849:. During the creation of this page/section I will check the meaning of each term in some reliable source. In the case of "bulk materials", I found this term somewhere (I don't remember where at the moment) as a synonym of "commodity", but now I am doubting that they are synonyms, so what do you suggest about the 6947:

Sarmalkow, thanks for engaging us. This time of year, and again in the spring, Wiki-chem gets a burst of homework assignments, like yours. These students are trying to do the right thing but how could they possibly know the guidelines? Unfortunately, instructors are rarely involved and also do not

6831:

And experience shows that students homework assignments could almost alway be improved - do you agree? Some specifics: The term "recent" becomes stale in a year or two in the encyclopedia, no one is using Periana catalysis for methane activation. Ever. Why refer to him with a title Prof? etc. We

5569:

Hi Riventree, great idea in my opinion. I bet these salts are used in all sorts of ways. It would be interesting to describe the structures with respect to hydrogen-bonding. Also whether these salts form hydrates. But that content can be added over time and eventually various editors will find some

5159:

Yes, I amended your edit on MnO. You can always check the history of edits by clicking on the history tab at the top of your page. Or you can check up on the editing activity of anyone by clicking "User contributions" on the left side of any user page. So if you look at my contributions, about ten

5120:

I've read your comment (message?) on my page. I understand what you mean, but I was just adding some info that could not be found anywhere else and I once needed, and couldn't find on wiki. Anyway, I'll refrain from adding manual-like content (pretty much the only stuff I can add, sadly). It's better

4459:

onto the retina. Common usage rarely makes that distinction -- even collectors of vintage photographs usually call their swap meets "image shows" -- so it is certainly not mandated here, but when possible without making the wording too awkward I now incline to referring to the artifacts themselves as

4241:

Fair question, friend. My goal was not to add knowledge to Knowledge, my goal was to redraw mechanisms or schemes from WP that could look better with a little forethought into design. It started on Twitter as #ChemDrawChallenge, where we would take a sloppy or confusing ChemDraw image from a paper or

4164:

Well the main thing is that it is nice that you want to contributie. One suggestion if you are a new editor is to work on smaller scale projects than some grand mechanism. We need articles on many useful ligands for example. Lots of articles on complex heterocycles lack citations. Try to stick to

3867:

Although with best of intentions, you may be engaged in a tricky game especially since you are starting this process before you have good sources. Yes, we realize that some compounds are made on a large scale. I recommend caution because I doubt if official definitions exist for bulk, commodity, or

2991:

is the most effective or appropriate article for the topic. All sorts of ill-thought out overlapping topics have often been created on very similar topics. It is this level of analysis that really is taxing. Often the solution is to merge related articles, which I sometimes advocate, thinking that

746:

As for topic reccomendations, besides the other occasional curiosities, I am interested in sourcing chemical reagents from renewable resources (i.e. practical yet unconventional total syntheses of reagents). It's fun to think (mostly waste time) over. If you have something weird for me in a secondary

7146:

not in the wrong place. And I can be an aggressive editor. So the collision of your relative inexperience with my ways is surely frustrating. You handled the situation perfectly: with a note to the deleter. The other angle you can take is, if you think my action was ill-advised, is revert what I

5100:

Hi, Smokefoot: In general, I would agree with your comments. However, as I am now almost 92 years old and also that I have not had anything to do with the subject article, I hesitate to get involved in re-writing parts of that article. Please try to get some chemist (rather than a chemical engineer)

4267:

But even that question doesn't really matter. My question is, is the original mechanism nice to look at? Could it be more clear or more appealing with a little face lift? And if it has errors, can we both fix those errors and make it more aesthetically pleasing and/or even clearer than the original?

2997:

Otherwise, I am quite comfortable with my approach to offering accolades for good content creation, editing and administration (and those doing it), as well as in challenging unfit material, and interacting with others (non-expert and expert), etc. Moreover, I have been awarded for calling attention

31:

Hi there - thanks for taking out the edits on Iodine value I had made on my tablet - I guess I thought I would get back quicker to do the things I had tried to suggest. Could you have a look and see what you think of the next version - there were some things in my edit which I can only see as being

7114:

They weren't apps you deleted, they were alternate preservatives to EDTA used in ocular pharm. Increasingly EDTA is used instead of BAC, so I have added EDTA to BAC page (as well as other 3rd gen and 1st gen preservatives). For completeness they were also added to EDTA page. Don't see an issue with

6996:

I also agree with the "thanks for contributing" and the value added by even good content that is not up to great style. And I also echo the need to get feedback back to the instructors about how they can better work with Knowledge and help their students understand/become more quickly accustomed to

6928:

I know that two of those articles you mention were written from scratch (including the images) within the past few days by editors who also are new to Knowledge. It's not unusual for new editors not to know the local style guidelines and conventions. Some of those are even worse in that the "Figure

6878:

Okay, I find I'm headed into some other points...The experimental results (specific catalysts and their product ratios) can similarly be removed and simply described in the text (since it really is just text anyway). Or simply omitted altogether (Knowledge focuses on secondary references, so seeing

6486:

Your enthusiasm is admirable, and you know a lot of chemistry, but it is still worth exploring your proposed edits on Talk pages before inserting them. You arent required to, of course, but it would be a good idea to give you a chance to hear different perspectives. Most of these articles already

5429:

Another major application is in fuel and hydraulic lines, due to PTFE's low resistance against flowing liquids. Colder temperatures at high altitudes cause these fluids to flow more slowly. Coating the lines's interior surfaces with low-resistance PTFE helps to compensate by allowing the liquids to

4001:

Hello- I made several changes to the water fluoridation controversy page, which were reverted with a suggestion to post an explanation of all edits on the talk page for discussion. I did so, but there have been no comments, so I'm not sure where to go from there since I've never dealt with reverted

3796:

it looks like that there are two types of commodity chemicals, so now I am not sure that the terms "bulk chemicals" and "commodity chemicals" are exact synonyms: most likely "bulk chemical" is a synonym of "branded commodity chemicals". Give a couple of days to check these definitions in a reliable

2361:

It just seems that what you are trying to do requires a lot of expertise in biosynthetic and biodegradation pathways and access to high level sources, not just websites. So I would try to convince your teacher to get involved (probably over their head too, I would guess) or make the topic a little

1535:

I guess the article should be cleaned up, that would be the way to go rather than adding to the problem. There also is the appearance of COI between the editor who started an article on a journal edited by Ramsden and citing an obscure article by the same person in the same journal. Thanks for the

1053:

Thanks for the reminder. Although I might err in some cases, I usually follow official protocol. It would be nice to have the authority to switch the target title to an existing redirect without needing to ask for an administrator, but I get lots of help. It looks like the move that I wanted was

729:

Thank you for looking over my work once again. I will take your critiques to heart and make some appropriate changes. I agree about my illustration, it is a butt-ugly eyesore. I just thought I would draw it because the whole article set a precedence for pictures (i.e. I didn't want my submission be

6850:

I know that WP is public and anyone can edit any article. I don't need a lecture on that. How is a student homework assignment relevant? "Recent" is relative. Periana catalysis was in the article previously; I just moved it into a different section. Even if it isn't used anymore, it still provides

1853:

Dear Kohw: First of all, thanks for the note. Second, be aware that I have zero authority here and my exhortations are only that (hot air). In the end, editors do what they want and so long as the content is moderately factual, it will largely stand. Some comments inserted above. Good luck and

1732:

Thank you for the feed back, and clarification. I'll double check the link for what I was thinking but it makes more sense now. As for RSC it seem informative. I've listen to many of their podcasts and for the elements podcasts they are each produced by different professions. They mention a lot of

788:

Re your comment about the depletion of our petrochemical reserves. My understanding also is that cheap petroleum destroyed the coal-based chemical industry. Thank god though! Calcium carbide based chemistry is filthy and is probably only practiced in PRC and other places that tolerate pollution

6866:

I'll address one point: use of numbers to identify structures in an image. The fundamental problem is that it ties the image to the article at the point it was created. The image becomes less usable in other contexts. And the article itself becomes less editable because if the images get shuffled

7405:

is approx tetrahedral, P is 6. A bit weird- the structure is sort of fluorite like but as not all T holes are filled the coordination is 6 of the vertices of a distorted cube. ZnP2 has infinite P chains- anions if you like limiting ionic structures although its a semiconductor too. The structure

4406:

My understanding of WP guidelines is that the lead is supposed to be concise and written in terms that are as non-technical and accessible to the general reader as possible, which also throws into question the wisdom of reiterating the basic concept of a "slight chemical change" as an "incipient

1813:

4) The article is about a chemical species, not its environmental impact per se. So be balanced per WP:UNDUE. -- For part of the project, we are researching on how these chemicals are affecting humans and environment. The article already seems to have health issues involved. Would including more

6803:

Thanks for the suggestions to the page, but I disagree with some of them. Including numbers in figures (not artwork) is found in scientific journals, and is easier to understand. This page is for the public in the end. The figures I have added follow those from journals and are cited. There is

6601:

You can't restore a prod once someone other than the creator of the article has removed it. I see no other admin has been willing to do the deletion either. You will need to take it to AfD. I restored the fuller version with the link to the ruWP. I'm not an expert in this subject, but there do

1967:

Well I dont completely agree, adding many references to a single research group is highly unusual. Judging from the number of publications on lead poisoning or chelation, one can appreciate the difficulty in selecting references. Self-citation is a problem in Knowledge that conveys distorted

734:

source says iron pentacarbonyl can be used as reagent when no free carbon monoxide is available to recharge the catalyst. The equation yielding iron(II) carbonate is taken verbatim from the 1969 paper. For chemists without a lab fitted with special hazard insurance (i.e. being OK'd to work with

6548:

I'd suspect a school project. Everyone I know calls it "Red-Al", some name-reaction/common-reagent books call it SMEAH. Using the systematic/chemical name is reasonable for the article itself. TONE/NPOV is surprisingly good if it were a corp promoter:) But as often for merger of a huge pile of

4183:

Thank you for your reply. First, you did not respond to my questions. Can you point out what is incorrect in the mechanism so I may at least know for my own edification. Second, I don't appreciate the condescending implication of your comment that newbies can't make meaningful edits. I get the

2969:

content generation), and 20-30% of the latter (calling attention, and there, it is usually a result of reviewing links outside of the article I am generating). So I am quite comfortable, philosophically and practically with this. (Professors are paid for critical thinking and discourse. As for

1670:

or for the preparation of other fluorine compounds, including covalently bonded fluorochemicals." I didn't create this section but it seems to stay on subject for fluoride, I thought it should stay and I'm new to editing on wiki but I remember reading I should ask the editor if possible before

3053:

Kudos, also. It's good you know what drives you—knowing your desired destination make's it all the more likely you'll arrive. I've been in the background in chem for some time, and am only now raising my head for a breath, and then only briefly... but I am sure we will cross paths again, and

3017:

Some editors focus on really specialized academic stuff vs contextualizing (or they dont know any context). Often this problem comes from COI. Academics - high level and grad students - come to Knowledge to highlight their papers. More difficult to control are extremely specialized articles

1700:

One issue that I often contend with is that infrequent editors fail to appreciate the huge prosaic applications. Instead, we get a lot of editors who want to mention their hobby (e.g. aquariums, stain removal, grandma's ant poison) or their college essay/publication as being something really

2916:

Just a couple of comments/suggestions. Rather than critiquing - edit! That is what we do here. It takes less effort to consult a monograph or text on conformational analysis or VSEPR and repair something amiss vs writing "nearly all of the article is unverifiable, and parts are inaccurate or

5529:

Because they're increasingly mentioned in the literature on solar cells. There's limited information out there about melting points &c, but the compounds are all "known" to pubchem, chemspider, SMILES, etc. Likewise the old literature (mostly crystallographic) is of interest to the Xray

3002:

the actual editing is done. This strategy has been, relatively speaking, so successful that I always post a talk section before doing any major edit. (On the other hand, the more common, opposite strategy, to edit boldly and wait for reversion, has led to reversion wars—once for taking out

2345:

Hi, I saw your message on my Talk page and just wanted to thank you for the help you've provided for my work on 2-Butoxyethanol. My contribution to the article is for a class on environmental disruptors and I'm pretty new to Knowledge. What I was contributing today was on 2-Butoxyethanol's

1951:

You are out of line. The paper in question is published on the World Health Organization site, and is CLEARLY a secondary source, if you had bothered to examine it, as evidenced by the numerous other primary and secondary sources at the bottom of the page. I would encourage you to read the

3903:, where there are enough sources about the definition of "commodity chemicals" and a clear (I think) explanation of its meaning. I am going to create also a table with the worldwide production of these chemicals: in fact one peculiarity of commodity chemicals is their high production. -- 2979:

Well that is a possible accusation: critiquers are to some extent taking the easy road (at the risk of alientation from appearance of pretentiousness or effeteness). An intermediate path exists, which involves revising the really awful stuff and adding attribution to a solid text or

4198:

Sorry, I am not trying to be unwelcoming, but encouraging a new editor to start small is the usual advice that one follows in the lab as well as in Knowledge editing. On technical articles, it is a good idea to go incremental. One problem with your scheme is that it invoked Ru(I).

7156:

I avoid giving advice because I am no guru, but here goes. We all get absorbed in our specialties and are keen to share our hard-won insights. The problem is that our pet knowledge (mine too) is often rather specialized. But then our edits run the risk of violating this guideline

6929:#" is part of the image itself, making the article highly resistant to any edit that would insert, remove, or re-order the images. I vaguely remember a discussion years ago generally disfavoring "Figure 1" and the like (not specific to chemistry articles) but I can't find it in the 1713:

And the RSC links and WebElements links that I am disinclined toward. These websites do not seem (to me) to be particularly authoritative. They probably/possibly borrow content from Knowledge or chemical catalogues. I view them as quasi-adverts for some organization, such as the

4402:

To my eyes, "... creates an invisible latent image in the emulsion, which can ..." said just the same thing as "... creates an latent image in the emulsion. Although invisible to the eye, this latent image can ...", but in fewer words and perhaps a bit more clearly because of it.

1793:

If something is "currently… anything" then leave it out. Knowledge is not a blog. Your content is frozen in time largely. So then two years from now someone reads your content and sees that "it is currently a subject of legal action" which is obsolete because currently was very

4398:

It is heartening to find a proper chemist reviewing the technical accuracy of this article, and cit-starved as it is, the addition of any high-quality reference is cause enough for rejoicing, but I question whether some recent copyediting in the lead really represents progress.

2951:

well, a lot of early Wiki-chem was written by authors winging it. But that material is slowly being revised into more ground content. For example, there are not many compositions of matter described here in a misleading way. The more problematic articles are on concepts.

1491:

or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our

6879:

this specific set of primary data is possibly too detailed). Even the filenames such as that one's emphasize how tied to "the current writing of the current article" it is rather than being a sharable image on a centralized server for an article that will evolve over time.

3936:

Thanks for the response. I look forward to seeing a good definition. In terms of boldness, it is usually a good idea to be bold, but when one is challenged by experienced editor and when the edit has broad impact. Seeking consensus seems prudent, healthy, and collegial.

956: 6977:

Yes, we are being a little harsh, or actually frank. Knowledge is the recipient for a lot of homework, all well intentioned, maybe slightly naive.... So what we are trying to say is that with a little tweaking, your (and your fellow students') contributions could

5136:

I'm replying here because this whole talk thing seems a bit complicated (it says if I reply on my talk you won't have notifications?) and I don't have time to take a full tour of everything. What has been amended/removed, just to know? Something else other than the

738:

As a side note on the topic of the iron pentacarbonyl usage, the 1969 source says the reaction between methylacetylene and dimethylacetylene is highly selective (regardless of stichometry) favoring 1,2,4-trimethylhydroquinone, a precursor for the total synthesis of

4147:

Thanks for your comments. I agree the image is too large. I can fix that. Can you suggest how to correct the steps of the mechanism? My goal was to exactly replicate the mechanism already on the page, did I miscopy it, or is the original mechanism also incorrect?

7099:

Oh thanks for the note and sorry to have behaved impolitely. I saw that someone else deleted your see also link. For the EDTA article, if we made a see also link to every app of this common chemical, it seems that the list would be quite long, dont you think?

6487:

mention the affinity of heme proteins for these ligands. The lethality of cyanide is according to my understanding completely attributable to the electron transfer chain being shut down, not hemoglobin or myoglobin getting hit. Although now I see that even

6897:

I guess I just find figures with numbered compounds helpful. I agree with the figure containing only one structure, but disagree when multiple structures are present. And if this is an issue, why do other pages contain words and numbering in figures? i.e.

5391:

Hi thanks for the note and the opportunity to discuss things. Cr(IV) is d. Your well intentioned edit also includesd atomic configuration, but in compounds (vs gas phase metal ions) atomic configuration is not typically useful because the effects of the

6766: 6778: 6703: 968: 6455:

but also to hemoglobin, preventing uptake of oxygen. Both Hemoglobin and Cytochrome c oxidase rely on temporary binding of oxygen. Hemoglobin so it can carry oxygen to cells, and cytochrome c oxidase to convert oxygen into water. Hemoglobin + CO --:

2346:

environmental effects. I was also looking to provide some information on how it moves through the environment. I don't know if that helps you to understand the intentions behind my contribution, but if you need more help I could try to provide it.

32:

worth keeping such as the spelling of organoi(o)dine compounds - I could not see what the weak chemistry was you mentioned in the reversion comment. I am a high school chemistry teacher trying to make this clear enough for my students to understand

7283: 6369: 6282: 6206: 6126: 6059: 5977: 5885: 5817: 5747: 5672: 5319: 5253: 5038: 4931: 4849: 4779: 4672: 4596: 4522: 3658: 3587: 3514: 3383: 3311: 3226: 3150: 2860: 2792: 2723: 2655: 2588: 2500: 2408: 2299: 2233: 2155: 2089: 2014: 1398: 1330: 1268: 1160: 1100: 664: 600: 538: 475: 403: 339: 267: 205: 134: 72: 6691: 1587:

I could see why you removed my newer sections as I mistooke that I was posting on the ion form of fluorine. I wanted to ask a few questions though: you removed the secion: "===Inorganic chemicals=== Fluorides are pervasive in modern technology.

871:

Well that is an odd one. As we know, all sorts of articles get entered and the dubious ones have weak refs. I guess someone must have made the nitrate ester of boric acid, but I had not heard of it. Will look around as the opportunity arises.

3853:? It is fine to leave it there another couple of days and in the meantime I check it, or it is better to delete it and decide after about its creation? Do you have any other suggestion/comment about the commercial classification of chemicals? -- 7083:

Hi, I understand you may not be familiar with the preservatives used in ocular pharmaceuticals, but it would have been polite for you to follow up with me (or any online source) to educate yourself first, rather than just reverting my edit.

3023:

But if you are another thoughtful subject matter expert, I am sure we will enjoy working together toward high quality, secondary-referenced scientific content, side by side (even though I am non-wikipedian in my approach) Cheers. Le Prof

1819:

Just be mindful that there is a ton of (often mediocre or redundant) literature on tox and environmental stuff. So be careful. Remind your instructor that length does not correlate with excellence. We do not want the MSDS reiterated. See

6491:

lacks a decent reference. Also, these kinds of assertions benefit from reference to a textbook or a review. I any case I will revert by reversions and give us both some time to get this sorted out with some nice solid refs. Hows that?

4109:. I should add that almost every academic research makes the same mistake when they start editing here. Obviously you were not trying to trick anyone. I hope that you can edit articles where you know something but do not cite yourself. -- 6415:

no I wasn't aware that they were now e-books. I last consulted these at the university which is a bit of an inconvenience. Thanks for the heads up. I shall acquire them. There's no more space on my shelves for printed chemistry books.

6962:

Shouldn't we be grateful that information is added? It helps everyone out. I think the approach to familiarizing new editors is just a little harsh. New editors are just trying to help, like seasoned editors. Thanks for the insight.

2362:

easier. Also, Knowledge is an encyclopedia for rather general knowledge, not a catalogue of articles and websites. I hope that my advice does not seem harsh, but it seems that your assignment is almost too high and too vague. --

1787:

2) If you find you are using the word "recently", don't. We are not interested in news per WP:NOTNEWS. -- I haven't used recently but all I said was "it is currently a subject of legal action". Should I not use currently either?

1483:

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

2938:

Again, to the contrary, one of the problems of this organization is the very low view that is taken of adequately understanding and crafting and sourcing content before posting—in large part, because just typing, and later

1802:

exclusively US perspective. Far more readers live outside of US than inside. An essay on US regulations is inappropriate. -- I just gave what US is doing as an example. Should I just remove a discussion on US government?

855:

This looks rather odd. The "references" seem to be to boron nitride, the usual spelling mistake. The unreferenced preparation is tribromide plus nitric acid. All seems like a mistake to me. If you agree can we get it

1808:

then make sure that you indicate a US perspective. The EPA and FDA are the U.S. EPA and the U.S. FDA. It is a tiring to read the content from US students who are oblivious of the fact that they are a minority of

7046:

You might be reading a little more into my queries, but whatever. We all have bad days. I am not sure one can or would want to ban another editor from leaving a message, but one could always delete the message.

6533:

Beats me. Possibly a homework assignment, possibly a marketer of this stuff. Following your suggestions I went back to the article. I dont use it but my colleagues call it Vitride. You are welcome do dive in.

5084:

Thanks for your contribution; I have been chipping away at some of the details, but I agree that major changes in structure are necessary; use of the term "organic fertilizer" also needs to be tightened up - See

2970:

impact, Martin Luther did not personally reform Catholicism from within, but there is no gainsaying his impact on the history of that institution, achieved via calling attention to matters needing to change—

1783:. Naive editors often like to cite fairly narrow journal articles but you dont know enough to do that well (no offense). Professors and a handful of experts are really able to cite primary literature well. 6762: 1519:

I agree that in general primary literature should not be cited. But the ref. list already contains several others, and the paper I added extends the value of the article. So where is the consistency?

1774:

1) Be sure to emphasize secondary sources, i.e. reviews and books. See WP:SECONDARY. Absolutely required for biomedical citations per WP:MEDRS. -- How do I emphasize secondary source on bibliography?

952: 5091: 2965:

creation—these are truly much harder than just calling attention to shortcomings. (This could have been your persuasive argument, that I have taken too easy of a tack.) So I do 70-80% of the former (

1705:

on its role in aluminium and steelmaking, which really dominate. On the other hand, the use of fluoride in dental care is highly impactful, but consumes tiny fraction of the world's fluoride supply.

1675:{{vcite article |url=http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/fluoride.pdf |format=PDF |year=2004 |title=Fluoride in drinking-water |author=World Health Organization}}</ref: --> 4184:

concept of building up credibility, but patronizingly redirecting me to 'smaller' projects feels dismissive. Don't pull rank, that's unbecoming. Let's talk chemistry and work to make WP better. --

1682:

Thanks for the note. I hope that you will have a positive experience. The nature of your impact will improve by (i) communicating with established editors and (ii) making small changes initially.

6619:

I am sort of an expert on the subject and the Russian Construction manual is not a credible citation. But I will take a look again and try to prune silly stuff. Thanks for the help and note. --

6687: 5486:... Other important uses of PTFE resin are found in fluid-conveying systems, where it is used for gaskets, molded packings and seals, piston rings, bellows, overbraided hose, and lined pipe." -- 3307: 3222: 3039:

Thanks for you for the nice message and best wishes for your work here. For me, editing here is weird sort of a relaxation mechanism, so I am sort of a loner with my own complicated agenda. --

6278: 130: 5973: 4668: 2496: 4019:

Rebecca: the etiquette, to the extent it is defined, is for me to act on you cooperative gesture in a timely manner, which I failed to do. I will revert my revert. Thanks and good luck. --

1156: 335: 2404: 2010: 7406:

images we put up in wikipedia do not always do the coordination justice particularly when the coordinated atom is close to the edge of the unit cell. Regards. Have a good seasonal break.

2651: 2295: 596: 3510: 3379: 2151: 1030:

from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at

534: 399: 5813: 2085: 68: 6055: 5530:

crystallographers, and the new data is interesting to the solar cell crowd. Rather than add three pages (there is no substantial mention of the fluoride) I thought a category page ala

5315: 263: 201: 2719: 1394: 6867:

around the numbers get out of sequence. And if new images are created, they need to sync with the same numbers previously used for each compound. For example, there's no need to put

5668: 3583: 7279: 7210:

I actually kinda agreed with your removal of those weird names, but have become so politically correct that I sent the message to you. Best wishes to you and your father's soul, --

5249: 4927: 3701: 1096: 3146: 471: 6365: 6122: 5411: 2856: 2788: 2584: 833:

Drats. I thought that maybe you and DMacks would be happy! Well, at least the drawing is better than before. I will eventually redraw this again! Its been a while. Thanks, --

6202: 5200:

You really think that PH3 is produced industrially from the KOH vs NaOH? Seems unusual. Recall we are discussing how things are made industrially, not how the could be made. --

5110: 5034: 4845: 4775: 660: 4518: 2229: 1264: 5743: 4460:"photographs" rather than "images". Therefore, the former "... visible photograph" seems preferable to "... visible and permanent image, the photograph" for multiple reasons. 3654: 1326: 5881: 4592: 2992:

a few good articles are better than a lot of bad ones. I have however become convinced that what makes Knowledge special is its accommodation all kinds of specialized stuff.

3721: 5495: 5468: 4039:

Filenames should be clear and informative, and minimize ambiguity. If the filename could plausibly be used for a completely different image, it's not a good filename.

1003:

a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "

6518:. I've not checked over the edits yet but the images now have errors (at least to my eyes). I've mensioned it on the article talk page. Any idea whats going on here? 1710:" You are welcome to revise if you think that I messed up. My recollection is that the link was non-functional (they call this link-rot around here) so I tweaked it. 3850: 4002:

edits before. I don't know if there is an etiquette that requires a certain amount of time before I should reinstate the changes, or if someone else would do so.

3931: 1034:

to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at

1738: 6458:

Cyanohemoglobin. Binding of CO or CN to a heme molecule prevents oxygen from binding. The same mechanism prevents both enzymes from functioning correctly.

4227:

Question: if you dont know enough basic organometallic chemistry to avoid these easy errors, why are you pressing to create images for the world to see? --

735:

carbon monoxide), I thought small-time experimenters ought to know they can work with a relatively safe solid reagent rather than a highly poisonous gas.

7234: 7093: 3946: 3900: 3885: 3862: 3832: 3818: 3783: 2454:

I have no commercial or other interest in Meda. They are simply (to my knowledge) the only manufacturer or distributor of formic acid for medical use.

1678:" I've been including title and such from my citations, are you not supposed to? I want to make sure I'm not missing something. Thank you for your help. 1685:

In any case, the fluoride article is on F and related salts. At least that is the direction that the article has taken. I did not check to see if the

902: 6543: 4012: 762:

Well, I learned something about the hydroquinone synthesis, thanks. I thought that you blew it with ferrous carbonate and had intended to write Fe(CO)

3744: 7135: 7109: 5440: 4028: 3033: 1920: 1889: 1571: 798: 7397:

Thanks for that. Never come across zinc phosphides before - so quite interesting- a semiconducting rodenticide no less. The coordination of Zn in Zn

6478: 3972: 3112: 3063: 3048: 1063: 5381: 3018:

created, probably, for some COI-driven process. These editors almost never contribute more broadly. They are here to showcase their sub-subfield.

1734: 881: 7219: 7170: 6991: 6972: 6790: 6715: 5209: 5195: 4356: 4132: 4118: 4100: 4086: 1545: 2371: 1604: 1035: 980: 6501: 5177: 4277: 4236: 4222: 4208: 4193: 4178: 1047: 7115:

listing alternatives - there actually aren't that many. Am getting used to my edits being reverted. Think I might be in the wrong place here.

7078: 7070: 7056: 7006: 6957: 6942: 6923: 6888: 6670: 6586: 6572: 6558: 6430: 4269: 4214: 4185: 4149: 4123:

Of course, i have mainly contributed (in french but also, a little in english ) about thermodynamic, in citing Peter.W.Atkins. Sincerely Yours

3012:

Well, there you go. Perhaps your new reviewer style is the way to go. The question is who better than you will address the problems you raise?

5154: 1977: 1600:

and aluminium fluorides. Hydrofluoric acid has a variety of specialized applications, including its ability to dissolve glass. See this book:

766:. There is a huge amount of stuff in the Reppe area, but the main apps are hydrocarbonylation and hydroesterification of alkenes and alkynes. 7031:, and because of the disingenious replies you put there today, I state that you are not welcome on my userspace any more. Don't edit there. - 5405: 4469: 2987:

BTW, It can be a huge effort to revise an article on, say, cyclohexane conformation. Before undertaking such a project you need to assess if

842: 6628: 6425: 4067: 4058:

Is there a reason that you repeatedly cite fairly specialized papers by Cudennec et al? Just curious, but I look forward to a response. --

6751: 6676: 4443:

Finally, a beef which is not my own but which I am inclined to take to heart. Another editor has ranted with evident exasperation that the

3996: 1953: 941: 2902: 707: 3912: 3768: 3085: 7246: 6665: 4484: 4407:

chemical reaction", a more dauntingly technical albeit more specific description that may be counterproductive detail in this context.

3954: 3792:. However I am looking know to find some source and it looks that there is a little confusion about these terms. Furthermore, looking 1863: 1509: 6875:" because it's the only structure there and there is no other use of it elsewhere in the article--one can just say "the image above". 3735:) 22:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I have a conflict of interest in the sense that I serve Chem. Rev. in an advisory capacity. -- 1916: 5514:

Due to a number of (new in the last couple years) to this class of compounds, and some odd redirects (methylammonium chloride -: -->

5130: 730:

the only one to break the format). Anyways... I first learned of this from Ullmann's too but the coverage was a mere paragraph. The

6860: 6845: 6833: 6813: 4048: 2463: 1529: 1497: 4427:

image" subsequently promised by the new wording without the fixing step that is an integral part of the former article's subject.

2928:

original content generation, and are quite content (and well regarded for their "contributions"). In re: "It takes less effort…"

756: 6819:

Two points. First, thanks for the message and second, Knowledge has guidelines, which you are encourage to learn a little about.

6720: 6634: 5385: 4475::Well that kind of thinking can drive one nuts. Not sure it serves our readers. Please let me know how or where I can help. -- 41: 1821: 7415: 5940: 5853: 5785: 5715: 985: 910: 827: 7385: 4341: 4311: 2355: 1941: 1449: 1367: 1299: 1237: 1131: 865: 719: 6405: 6336: 6249: 6173: 6093: 6026: 4157: 3837:

I am going to create a page called "commercial classification of chemicals" or "industrial classification of chemicals" (see

696: 633: 569: 507: 444: 372: 308: 236: 174: 103: 5595: 5563: 5356: 5287: 1762: 1011:, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Knowledge has a feature that allows pages to be 6613: 6527: 4053: 2444: 2335: 2268: 2202: 2124: 2058: 5074: 5005: 4898: 4815: 4747: 4640: 4564: 3696: 3624: 3554: 3481: 3350: 3278: 3193: 7040: 6410: 2897: 2828: 2760: 2691: 2623: 2556: 2933:

I dont know of any "effective" contributor who just critiques, but maybe that is your niche. Knowledge takes all types.

1726: 789:

associated with making that crud. Petrochemicals are here for a long time, esp in view of cheap natural gas. Cheers,--

7131: 4411::I was trying to remove jargon or explain it a little better, but you seem to have a good way of writing, so I am cool. 3918:

In it.wikipedia I never had to ask for categorization. For this reason I didn't look for consensus. I used the list in

1961: 1896: 1620: 5505: 3922:, where there is the definition too. I will put the sources in the next days. Sorry for my English and my boldness. -- 1697:

etc articles are similar. You quickly can realize that there is a lot of opportunity for disciplined writing/content.

7204: 1968:

information, hence my concerns. In any case, thanks for being careful and I hope that I am indeed in the wrong. --

1882: 1875: 6911: 6872: 5456: 4447:, strictly speaking, is what the camera lens projects onto the photosensitive surface; the resulting artifact is a 3076:

If you know other natural products guys, please, feel free and direct them to the discussion. Cheers. Le Prof

4091:

Ok, i have suppressed my own publications list, which appears in the text, but not references of concerned papers.

6824: 4387: 3838: 1666:. Formerly, it was mined, but now it is derived from hydrogen fluoride. Various other fluoride salts are used as 996: 3727:

For chemists, Chem Revs is one of the best secondary sources, IMHO. Good luck with the glyoxalic acid quest. --

1564: 1557: 7225: 5361: 5115: 3071: 1767: 1454: 4423:

seems more likely to be helpful to the uninitiated -- and development alone will not produce the "visible and

2459: 1496:

for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see

6474: 4299: 4044: 7282: