User talk:Itub/2008-2011

Proposal discussion resumed

Hi.

I'm contacting you because you were involved in the discussion concerning the renaming of the lists of basic topics.

I ran into resistance when I attempted to rename the set.

Therefore, the name change hasn't been completed, because the previous discussion wasn't widespread enough, nor announced in enough places.

I've submitted a new proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to rename the pages called List of basic x topics to Topic outline of x.

The Transhumanist 06:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium dichromate redirect

Hi there. I came across a redirect you created: CaCr2O7, which points at calcium dichromate (which doesn't have an article yet). I was wondering if you were planning an article on that soon? I noticed your sandbox, where you have CaCr2O7 with calcium chromate (CaCrO4) as a synonym (surely it is a different compound?). As things stand at the moment, the redirect you created will get deleted unless the destination article is created. I think things should be handled differently, but just letting you know in case it does get deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted--I created by mistake, sorry. I was creating redirects for some of the blue links in that table, but as you can see the row for CaCr2O7 had the wrong name! --Itub (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. Someone should write an article on calcium dichromate though, and then it can be recreated! Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Dissociation Constant

Howdy, I'm mostly writing because I've got a question indirectly related to my chem article. I'm working on trying to bring ADC up to Class A under the Chemistry Wikiproject because I started work on the article 3 years ago. Since then, a user you may remember named Petergans has also made some significant contributions to the article. I made a suggestion and he mentioned that the subject of our disagreement had been "extensively discussed" on the law of mass action article, and indeed it has. It also gave me a good feel for his editorial style, and I worry about him becoming possessive of the article again. I guess I'm looking for suggestions? I just want to avoid arguing about the relationship between thermodynamics and kinetics again. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling so I don't have time to look at this in detail right now, but I'll take a look later. --Itub (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Adolph Stöckhardt

Spelling and english are not OK, but for a start it is OK! The book at googlebooks is quite funny and good to read. The article at Fresenius Analytical journal also gave a few aspects which where not covered by the Geramn article. So another chemist I can add to the trophy list ov having created the article! If you have others you like to have? Thanks --Stone (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the article! I don't have any other chemists in mind righ now, but I was thinking that one day we should look systematically at all the chemists that have articles in the German Wikipedia and not in the English one yet (probably mostly 19th-century German-speaking chemists). --Itub (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my userpage I already have my trophy list and most of listed are German chemist from the 19th century. Untill 1933 and even later the language of chemistry was German, but ........ I try to add one every few weeks and I download the necrologs or orbituary notices from Berichte or Liebigs Annalen, which are nice references and often nice to read. One of the chemists rights that he and his now dead collegue traveled to Great Britain when they where young and that they sat near Calais at the beach eating the last Meatball made by his mum. Or one of the guys started his Ph.D. 18 years old and finished with suma cum laude a year later shortly before his 20th birthday. I like those stories!--Stone (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just created User:Itub/Chemists, in case it helps find more interesting chemists that are missing. Note that some of the red links may just need redirects, while some of the blue links may not be about the same person! --Itub (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piperidine

That looks much better now. Apart from the fact that the important thioridazine compound is not mentioned, which is synthesized from the fireant toxin and the insecticidal phenothiazine, which is also a rubber vulcanization chemical. Ergo, thioridazine causes side effects like fireant bites, acts insecticidal in the brain i.e. "anticholinesterase blocking" and also slightly vulcanizes softened brain tissues. Can we add that? ;-) It was there, but has been deleted. Not to talk about the important pharmaceuticals Ditran and Piperidilbenzilates. I added these, it was so educational *sigh* 70.137.181.232 (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete that, but it's something that should be discussed in the article's talk page. The question is how much space should be devoted to derivatives, and how to make clear when we are talking about piperidine itself, and when about the piperidines in general. --Itub (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was just a wind up. The original editors of such info have vulcanized brains. You should have seen the article before.

Conformations: Thanks for the edits. One could forget that the piperidine also has a boat conformation, what about that? If we don't include it, the info now there is incomplete in the essentials. If we include the full info to the same depth as in the chair conformation, the article becomes quite heavy on conformational chemistry. Maybe include both, but with a little less detail? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I based what I added on what I found in the literature. Apparently the research has focused on the two chair conformations, because they are the stable ones and therefore considered more significant. Of course, if you find research on the boat conformation of piperidine, feel free to add it. Due to the instability of the boat conformation, I don't think there will be enough to add to the same depth as the chair conformation, and I don't think that the article would be too heavy on conformational chemistry. If it looks that way, it's because it is too light in the other areas! --Itub (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I know the boat configuration is at a higher energy than the chair configuration, but it is also a local minimum of energy, surrounded by an energy wall. As a local minimum it is stable, only less favored statistically. It would be instable, if it would be at a local maximum or slope, as the surrounding conformations are. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about piperidine, but in cyclohexane, the boat conformation is not a minimum (although the twist conformation is). See cyclohexane conformation. In any case, I really meant "less stable". I'd guess that peridine spends around 99.9% of the time in a chair conformation, which is why I say it is more significant. However, if you find references for research on the boat (or twist) conformations of piperidine, feel free to add them. --Itub (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol for liter

I note that you recently edited Cyclohexane. What uncanny coincidence. Without seeing your contributions, I had chosen that same article for use in an example on Talk:MOSNUM only twelve hours later. What do you think of my latest proposal regarding ml / mL HERE on Talk:MOSNUM? What I’m trying to do is give chemistry editors the latitude to use the SI-compliant lowercase L in prefixed forms (like ml), and also address the highly ambiguous non-prefixed form, like “2 l bottle” by requiring that it be uppercase L (“2 L bottle”). Greg L (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N-Formylpiperidine

Hey Itub

DMFA goes somewhere weird. I assume you refer to dimethylformamide? I know that by "DMF", perhaps DMFA is an alternate abbreviation. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Acutally it would be better to type the full name, but I was a bit lazy. :) --Itub (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances#Collector value

Given your interest I would like your opinion on deleting the section On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances#Collector value.

My contribution reproduced from Talk:On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances page to avoid 'fragmentation':

I have deleted the reference in this section as it was broken, although I must say that I was tempted to delete the  
whole subsection. However, the 'art-works' argument convinced me otherwise. I wonder how much someone would pay for the  
PDF copy I have?... ;-)   --Spud Gun (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I am not now so convinced by the 'art-works argument'. I have looked at several Wikipedia pages  
concerning works of art by Picasso (as good a choice as any...) and many make no mention as to their value. Given 
the  nature of this 'work of art', unless there is a verifiable sale at auction for a substantial sum (rather than some  
somewhat arbitrary cost value), I suggest that this section be deleted, as its sale value is far from germane to the 
true  vale of the work.
--Spud Gun (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piperidine

See piperidine talk, pharmacological significance. I have added from memory a few considerations in embedding a functional amino group into a semi-rigid conformation, like piperidine or morpholine. This is std pharmacology text material, also found in numerous teaching books. As an example (however with a morpholine ring, not a piperidine ring) look how the structure of methamphetamine was embedded into the ring structure in phenmetrazine. The other examples are also valid. This IS significant as a drug design method, however not in the naive sense Carebear and others think. Not everything you don't know is bullshit or vandalism. 70.137.164.136 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. Just so you know, I, and almost certainly Rifleman 82 and Smokefoot too, have Piperidine on our watchlist, which means that we can readily see whenever someone posts anything new to the talk page. You don't need to spend time going around to announce it on each of our talk pages. Have you considered creating a user account? You could have a watchlist too, and it would be easier for people to know who they are talking to if you post from different IP addresses. I'll post the rest of my reply at Talk:Piperidine. --Itub (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on unit symbols for liter

We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right

Something's wrong with that bot edit. It looks good but it doesn't work. I have reported it here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page

Hi there, I don't mind you moving a page to change the punctuation in the title, but could you update the articles that link to this? list. Thank you! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the redirect left by the move is for? --Itub (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that most of these links were a result of {{Enzymes}}, so fixing the template fixes all those links (I just did that). There are only 10 links left after that... --Itub (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Thanks for dealing with them. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oil shale extraction

Hi, Ivan. I knew this is not exactly your field of wikiediting, but I would like to ask your help with the FAC nomination of the Oil shale extraction article. I knew you have gone through the FAC procedure previously and probably you could help with edits/comments in this process. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manganese(II)manganate(VI)

Since you have administrative authority, you might be able to get this awful thing removed. It looks like the author is generating garbage. Probably a really smart 8-year old. PS thanks for all your good efforts and help. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to get this removed, but I have no administrative authority. I tried proposed deletion, but since the author reverted it I think we'll have to go to AfD. Lame... By the way, if you liked this article, you'll love dicarbon tetroxide! ;-) --Itub (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with (CO2)2. A quick google search showed [1]. Should we redirect to Manganese(III) oxide (Mn2O3)? Itub: Thanks for catching my circular redir, btw. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration, this would have been a totally inappropriate redirect. An appropriate title to redirect to Mn2O3 would be manganese manganate, or manganese(II) manganate(IV). I'm prepared to delete as G-1 nonsense. The chemistry is clearly wrong (simply based on the article title and the molecular formulae proposed in the box). I'll need you guys to help me make doubly certain, though. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA?

RE: Smokefoot's request. Should this be rectified? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit ambivalent. I'm critical of the RFA process and I'm not sure if I want to endure it, and also I'm afraid if I make it it would encourage me to spend even more time here! I'll think about it. --Itub (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll be a great admin, since you've been around here for a while and have good judgment. However, RFA is not a walk in a park, so I understand your reluctance. If you wish, you can treat this as a standing invitation from me - just say the word and I'll start the ball rolling? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for gnoming

A couple months back you fixed some links on my page to make clickable category links for my own future reference instead of putting my userpage in those categories. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate it. Keep up the good work. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I'll keep cleaning up categories that end up with user pages by accident. :) --Itub (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Itub,

Good to finally meet you in Philly! Thanks a lot for making time for that.

Sorry that you ended up nominating some articles right before the automated selection came out! An unfortunate happenstance, as we transition from a manual to an automated system. The manual system will remain open, though because a few articles may get mis-read by the bot or missed altogether. Also, in some cases we may want a complete set (e.g., we have all the known elements, even though a handful are theoretically ranked too low). Thanks for the nomination, anyway! Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's just that I didn't read the instructions well enough. I somehow thought that only the articles on that page would be included, instead of those on the bot-generated list. --Itub (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/13/08 DYK

On 13 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cardanol, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) --Itub (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Image Periodic Table by Quality

Did you have a look on the Image:Periodic_Table_by_Quality.SVG ? I like it that you simply can change the svg with a text editor and you get the new colours you want. Is this an improvment? Is the small Image Periodic_Table_by_Quality.png in every project elements box replaceable? --Stone (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited the periodic table by quality so you'd have to ask the people who do that, but I think the SVG is a big improvement for the reason you give. It is much easier to edit, whether with a text editor or an SVG editor. --Itub (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked them but got no response jet.Stone (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC thing

I tried to talk to this character about creating redirects (useful) or tidying up IUPAC name slot in ChemBox... I just cannot understand what is driving him, and the repeated efforts are annoying. Maybe plasmaphysics will listen to you.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on our past interactions, I doubt he will listen to me or that he knows what he is talking about. Sorry if I can't assume good faith, but it looks like borderline trolling to me. The IUPAC Red Book clearly says that "charges need not be specified in stoichiometric names" and that "multiplicative prefixes need not be used in binary names if there is no ambiguity about the stoichiometry of the compound". Maybe you can ask Physchim62 for a second opinion on the nomenclature, as he seems to know that very well. I think some of the names Plasmic Physics has been adding are not even correct (some of the others may be correct but are unnecessarily complicated). --Itub (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iridium

You are definitly fast, I wanted to add the stuff, after I got home, but ... You might get it GA or even featured! --Stone (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the ^{[citation needed]} tags and minor MOS issues, do you think there is anything missing to submit it for GAN? Nergaal (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ready, other than the missing citations and clarifications. There are a couple of things that should still be added, such as the Mossbauer effect, but those are not needed for GA in my opinion. --Itub (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen molecular ion

Sorry if I stepped on your toes. It wasn't my intention. My main concern with an "ion" title is that there is also a H₂^- ion that could fall within this name. You are probably right about the terminology. I thought it might sound more clear this way. Please don't take this in any negative way, and let me know if you need any help with this. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I don't see it as stepping on my toes or as something negative, just as a well-intentioned move to what is, in my opinion, not the best title because few people use it. A redirect and mention of the alternative name are always a good idea, of course. My thinking is that it is best to use the term people are more likely to come across. In any case the first sentence of the article makes clear which ion is meant. --Itub (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of nature

Just to say I agree with both your name change and the removal of categories on this article - I had pondered both, but you were bold and did them. Thanks, and regards, TrulyBlue (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corticostriate fibers

Just wanted to let you know that I have followed your suggestion -- I converted this one-sentence article into a redirect to "striatum", which already discusses the corticostriate connection. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS/Draw

Re: the tag issue, you might want to see my expanded explanation at User talk:Rifleman 82#Isis/DRAW, but I do agree with you that the importance tag is a better fit for this case (despite the silliness of the name; they're obviously both notability tags). Propaniac (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old reply

An old reply here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itubot

Itubot (talk · contribs)

Has this bot been approved for use? It showed up in a report at WP:UAA. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is still under development, but I intend to use it for assisted editing rather than as a fully automated bot. If I understand WP:BOT correctly I don't need approval for that, right? --Itub (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GAN request

I would normally do it if it was something I was knowledgeable in, but chemistry isn't my strong suit. I did Noble gas to test myself and see how much I knew; I did fairly well, I guess. But I haven't done a chemistry article since! So, sorry, I think I'll pass on this one. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry

Hi, I have readded the country column and matched synched everything with the Nobel website. Should I add some kind of note saying that the column just follows what the website says and may not necessarily indicate the birthplace/nationality? Do you consider your concerns addressed now? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, is this good enough? I was going to add something along the lines of "This information may not necessarily reflect the recipient's birthplace or present citizenship" but didn't think it was worded very well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Perhaps someone can come up with a better wording, but this should be enough. If there is something we can cite that says that the country is the "affiliation at the time of the award", it would be good to add that, but if not I think it is fine to just say it is the country listed in the website. --Itub (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I could add the birth countries mentioned at the Nobel website, but italicize them, ie. Marie Curie | Poland/France . That way, it would still conform the website, but would also avoid some of the inevitable edit wars that could crop up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as long as it is clear. Perhaps the most straightforward way would be to add a note in parentheses. For example, something like "France (b. Poland)". --Itub (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osmium

I added stuff from iridium to the osmium article. Would be nice if you could have a look. Thanks!-Stone (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's making a lot of progress. I see if I can help next week. A couple of comments: the fountain pen use is probably historical, same as for iridium, and a very remarkable fact that needs to be mentioned is that Os is the least used of the platinum metals. So little Os is made that there are no precise reports of production and prices, but the estimates I've seen are around 100 kg per year! That means that you could put most of the osmium made in the world in one year in a gallon-sized bottle (or a couple 2 L bottles for those not familiar with gallons ;-) As a result, Os has very little "real-world" application (i.e., anything other than scientific research or other very specialized niche uses). --Itub (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The progess is due to the fact that history and production section are nearly identical to iridium and so most of the progess was your work. I will add the fact that it is the least used PGM. Thanks.--Stone (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Itub/Chembox property count

Hi Itub. How much work was it to extract these data from the chemboxes? I think it would be nice to have the same for de:Vorlage:Infobox Chemikalie. --Leyo 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't take too much work; I just need to make some minor adjustments to parse the German box and let it run (which takes a few hours at most at the pace I usually run my script.) I'll let you know when it's done. --Itub (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! --Leyo 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See de:Benutzer:Itub/Chembox property count. Feel free to translate it! ;-) --Itub (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I reformated it into a sortable table. Would it be easy to list all articles with properties that I did not indicate as “OK”? That would enable us to easily find and correct them. --Leyo 18:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll look at that tomorrow. --Itub (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is of course no hurry. --Leyo 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a table (I skipped the properties that were already done), although I see now from the discussion at the German WikiProject that there was already a tool that I didn't know about that could do more or less that! (The "templatetiger".) --Itub (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not knew before that TemplateTiger can also do a screening. I though it is just possible to look for specific parameters. However, the database is quite old. --Leyo 10:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All chemboxes i.e. their parameters have been fixed now. --Leyo 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QL

Thanks for tagging QL (chemical), if you know of any web resources (or non-web resources) that might be of use for expansion it would be appreciated. Thanks. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I added the template because I saw it in a new articles list, but I don't really know anything about it. A google books search turns out many possible sources (the one that you used appears at the top.[2]) But you knew that already, I'm sure. --Itub (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review invitation

Hi, your name was on the list of volunteers as someone interested in physics and outer space. You might be interested in the article Gerard K. O'Neill, currently up for review. Gerard K. O'Neill invented the particle storage ring, and he managed to get a paper about space colonization published in a peer reviewed journal. If you have time, could you give it a read and let me know if you see any areas that need improvement? Thank you. Wronkiew (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be away for a few days, but I'll see if I can take a look when I'm back next week. --Itub (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I look forward to your review. Wronkiew (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have posted a response on the review page. Wronkiew (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ΔG standard

Hi, Ivan. I'm back and beginning the revisions. In Acid dissociation constant, Mike Christie has substituted theta for the thermodynamic standard sign, which I'm sure is wrong. I can't find the IUPAC recommendation on-line. Is it still the plimsoll mark, like ΔG^O or is like ΔG^o? Please comment on the FAC discussion page. Petergans (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3], either is fine (but certainly not theta!). I suggest using ΔG° for simplicity (here I used the degree sign; I'm not sure if that is better than the superscripted lowercase o that you used. --Itub (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of discussion has been going on, but not in the place you might expect. The previous FAC discussion is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid dissociation constant/archive1. Please also look at [4] and[5]

I have attempted to fix all the issues raised so far. Some of them appeared as direct edits of the article, which I picked up through the article's history tab. The FAC process is unlike any editorial process I have known and I'm particularly cross that you have been left out of the loop for the recent discussions. Petergans (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help much during the last few days because I was away. Don't worry, you can get the article featured but the process is a bit sui generis and takes some time to get used to. Now you learned that you need to have time available for a couple of weeks to respond to all comments because there is a deadline. I think the most important part is to have on board someone who is really familiar with the process and who has the patience to deal with all the minor details such as layout. I think if you get Mike Christie to agree that the article is ready, it will have a very high chance of passing easily. --Itub (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR on extraordinary article

Hello,

I noticed your name in the PR list.

Can you take a look at this PR talk page Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1 please?

The article makes lots of claims that need to be assessed.

Thank you very much.

Cesar Tort 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but historical/nationalistic controversies of this sort are not my cup of tea. --Itub (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me Guidance

Thanks dear for giving this very use full link to edit.... in future I hope u support me.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Soft (talk • contribs) 11:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Gas vs. Perfect Gas

As an Aerospace Engineer, I recognize that a perfect gas and ideal gas are fundamentally different. I have described these differences in Gas. The article for Perfect gas I believe is needed. A Perfect gas is NOT an Ideal gas. Many authors omit the existence of a perfect gas in its entirety because it is not of importance to most people because the majority of people aren't dealing with jet engine or rocket computational models where these small differences make years of difference between computational time. Please reconsider reverting your deletion of Perfect gas. Thanks Katanada (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe aerospace engineers use a different definition of the term than most other physical scientists. Feel free to revert if you can add a reliable reference that explains the difference. But even then the article must be qualified by saying that in most fields the two terms are synonyms (there are lots of books that make that explicit assertion). --Itub (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Itub, I want to apologize for my comment at the fluorocarbon talk page that I think crossed the line and inflamed tensions. I apologize for my hardheaded debate style regarding the definition of fluorocarbon. Ideally, I want to establish a positive co-editing working relationship with you. I am not sure if that is possible. I am about to make some edits to the fluorocarbon talk page. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the debating style; I care about the hardheaded editing style. You are doing major controversial edits without consensus while we are still discussing things. You slap dispute templates in "other people's" articles, but remove them from "your articles". You claim there is consensus behind your edits when there is none. I don't have any undying grudge against you, but as long as you keep doing edits that don't improve the articles or go against consensus I will react accordingly. --Itub (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being too bold. I have been very bold with my edits. I can easily see how it was interpreted as exceedingly bold to the point of offense. I also replied here. Thank you for your patience with me as I learn. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Itub, I know the organofluorine page might leave a bad taste in your mouth currently, but if you can hear me out, please do. I think it would be most wise to merge organofluorine chemistry with organofluorine, in order to settle on the most general term. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a pretty good argument for organofluorine compound. I hope you see the same logic in it that I do. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could apply a new template for my proposal then I would appreciate it. I am not sure what it would be as the policy page I found got complex, and I need to sign off. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I've replaced the merge templates with a more generic version that doesn't suggest which is the "from" article and which is the "to" article. But the exact template doesn't matter that much anyway, what matters is the result of the discussion. --Itub (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaTeX symbols

Dear Itub, thank you very much for your opinion at the deletion discussion about the table of LaTeX symbols. I have proposed including the new layout at m:Help talk:Displaying a formula#LaTeX symbols. Regards, --Julian (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hydrogen#Split_proposal

Hi Itub, you were recommended for advice, can you please have a look at Talk:Hydrogen#Split_proposal and join the disccussion ? Thanks Mion (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sabatier principle

On 18 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sabatier principle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thermic rescue

I've tried to rescue Thermic reaction by moving it back to Thermic, and making it a disambiguation, with references in basic form. Please improve it as you see fit. --Zigger «º» 16:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hexafluoroacetone

Wonderful example isn't it? I think the keto-enol stuff (or lack thereof) could be made explicit in contrasting acetone. I reworked the reactivity section, can you take a look? I made the values non-specific and renamed (the value given in Lemal) as just the equilibrium as it seems the true equilibrium constant would take into account the initial concentration of water (but I could be wrong as I am unmotivated to break out a book). Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a misprint (right?) on the piece as the hexafluoroacetone is de-fluorinated in the example. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that there is a typo in Lemal's scheme, and I agree that some mention of the lack of keto-enol tautomerism in hexafluoroacetone could be helpful.

Presumably, the equilibrium constants are for dilute aqueous solution; in that case, the activity of the solvent (water) is taken as 1 and can be excluded from the equilibrium constant.

I'm not convinced of the benefit of rounding the K's to one significant figure. What do we gain by losing precision?

Finally, I wouldn't say that this equilibrium can be used to demonstrate that hexafluoroacetone is "highly reactive". Highly reactive towards water, sure. And presumably reactive towards other nucleophiles by analogy. But on the flip side, it is unreactive towards oxygen (non-flammable), while acetone itself is highly reactive (extremely flammable). Same for reactivity towards fluorine, and probably some other oxidizing agents as well. --Itub (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding me of the assumption for dilute solutions. in that case, i don't see a problem with using the term equilibrium constant. i replaced the words "reacts vigorously" with water as an attempt to incorporate material that seemed to be typed from an author's experience and uncited into a form that was cited. i removed the detail on the values for the K because it seemed that the billion part was the most important distinction between the two compounds. btw, i think the carbon-fluorine bond page is looking very nice, good job on adding that content. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Droogie

A tag has been placed on Droogie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Badger Drink (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well

perhaps i shouldn't have said it (according to some policy) but i did here. i cannot help but to have an extreme distaste for that editor. can you please help me out as i have had to deal with the painful thought of his/her potential return to wikipedia? -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your comment will be helpful and it appears to be a personal attack, but anyway, that's between the two of you. However, I can assure you that Smokefoot is in fact a very productive editor and I certainly hope that he will return from his wikibreak. He has started about 200 articles, most on inorganic chemicals, chemists, inorganic chemistry, and related topics, and his contributions are much appreciated. Most of his work doesn't cause any sort of controversy; I'd say it is only when he sees what he considers to be POV-pushing or misguided edits by newbies that things become a bit agitated. My suggestion is that if you don't agree with him you try to listen to other people. If the regulars at WP:CHEMS all seem to agree about something, is not because of groupthink IMHO, but because they all have years of Wikipedia experience, and years or decades of chemistry experience (most of the regulars have chemistry PhDs, and at least a couple are university professors who are unfailingly patient and polite). That's why we can usually reach a consensus very quickly: because we know how articles are usually organized and titled in practice. And that's why the less patient and polite among us got a bit ticked off when someone starts moving things around without sufficient discussion. More patient would also help IMHO; due to the nature of asynchronous communication, reaching a solid agreement about a merger can take weeks or even months. But we tend to have a philosophy that there is no deadline. --Itub (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for the there is no deadline link, that helps me. but, IMHO, considering it to appear a personal attack, and raising POV isues serves as illogical defense mechanisms, IMHO. Smokefoot even conceeded here (implicitly) on their talk page, on October 19th 2008, that the content was not POV pushing. (the only argument that was used before that was that i was citing too many primary sources which might create a biased perspective, but i eliminated the vast bulk of primary sources from PFOA). i was simply explaining justified feelings towards an irrational harrassing editor. I am optimistic, considering our recent contributions to fluorine, that we can work together, but unfortunately, I have a lurking fear that he/she might chirp up with an illogical contribution going against my statement here at any minute...

you're right, i probably wasn't listening closely enough to established editors at certain times, however, I felt I had ample reason, as mentioned here on why I thought there was something wrong with the "establishment" as i was experiencing it. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

erbia/terbia

hey, sorry about my mis-edit. do you think that that note should be included in the article itself as it's quite a significant point? or maybe the wording should be changed to something like "what was then known as erbia" as the sentence doesn't make clear that it that it's using past terminology. what i mean is, the sentence effectively says something like "Carl Gustav Mosander found erbia in 1843", i think it should be made clear that this is a past meaning of erbia, as the sentence structure suggests the present meaning. anyway, let me know what you think, sorry if this message is a little confusing... lack of sleep :) xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a footnote explaining the situation, but if you can come up with a good way of incorporating it in the main text, you are welcome to try! --Itub (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well how about "In 1843, Carl Gustav Mosander found that samples of yttria actually contained three oxides: white yttrium oxide (yttria), yellow terbium oxide (confusingly, this was called 'erbia' at the time) and the rose-colored erbium oxide (called 'terbia' at the time)." this removes any confusion over whether the past or present name is being used, as well as removing the need for a footnote. what do you think? Jessi1989 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I didn't write the original text, so I certainly don't feel any "ownership" towards it... --Itub (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

k i'll change it and see what happens. thanks for your input xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC acid dissociation constant

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates FAC status and the problems with ther lead of acid dissociation constant is discussed there.--Stone (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll figure out what I can say tomorrow. The situation really degenerated during the days I was away! --Itub (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, I'm waiting till Monday to allow for responses over the weekend. After that I think we should substitute the lead by your version with whatever mods you think are needed. As you say, the situation has really degenerated and it is particularly disagreeable that people who know so little chemistry should be telling how to write. My last round-robin was deliberatly provocative. We have to isolate those people who are making suggestions that we, as professional chemists, cannot accept. Time is running out. I'm going to be away on a winter break 13-27 Dec. Petergans (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protactinium Image by Vuerqex

My photograph is not fake! The photograph is real! It is not just a white powder! Look closely! Can't you see that it is obviously a metal of some sort! It is a tiny amount of protactinium, shown [much] larger than actual size. Vuerqex (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:91 Protactinium.jpg

P.S. Oh, and because I don't want you just going and saying it's fake, I want you to know that my actinium picture [[Image:89 Actinium.jpg]] is also real! Vuerqex (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had some problems with the images of user:Vuerqex, you asked if the Protactinium picture is fabricated, it is even better 5 his of the 7 images he uploaded are clear copyright violations. I tried to get ride of most of them, but for Helium.png Radium.gif I have not found the original web page from which they were copied from, but as a serial violater I do not think we should keep any of the pictures of Vuerqex on any page. Can you have a look on him from time to time?--22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was someone else who first asked about the image, but I agreed that it was a reasonable questions. Maybe it turns out that it is a real image, but as you say the main problem now is the copyright violations. Thanks for all the detective work in finding the originals! --Itub (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had posted your views in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian Kepler Periodogram

Since you de-PRODded this article, you may be interested in participating in the WP:AfD discussion here. Icalanise (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeesh

Well, I shouldn't have said a thing.... Have a nice holiday. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid dissociation constant

If you could weigh in on Petergans recent behavior with the article that would be great.--Jorfer (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you said what it is that you find objectionable. --Itub (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK candidates

Happy New Year, Ivan. I see that you are on the ball as usual with the added categories. I have submitted stability constants of complexes (Dec. 28) and polyamino carboxylic acid (Dec 29) as new articles at Template:Did you know‎ but so far they have not received any comment. If you have the time, your help in getting them promoted would be much appreciated. Petergans (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. I'm not really involved with the DYK process other than submitting a couple of entries. In my experience, it is possible not to receive any comments until the last possible day but still be promoted. I think the only thing you can do is to try to make the hook interesting and make sure it is visibly referenced in the article, and then forget about it unless you receive any comments (I see you already received some about the older entry). --Itub (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello

just wanted to say hello and that your absence has been noticed. hope all is well. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still alive, thanks for asking. It's just that I moved, started a new job, and don't have as much free time to spend editing Wikipedia. (I was procrastinating way too much at some point.) Cheers, Itub (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good to hear. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osmium

Hi Itub, I wanted to get the Osmium article to GA and so I would ask you if you can have a short look and give a advice what could be improved. The lead is not done yet but the rest is OK I think. Thanks --Stone (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks promising. Well referenced and fairly comprehensive, although it needs some editing throughout. I hope I have some time to give more detailed suggestions or try to edit a bit myself, but I can't promise anything. One area that would be really nice to expand (if possible) is the compounds section. One thing that I would remove is the thing about Os-192 being the densest substance. It is speculative, possibly wrong, unreferenced, and a bit trivial (and there have been complaints in the talk page about it). Also I think the separation between the physical and the chemical properties could use some improvement; I wouldn't mention properties of compounds in the physical properties section. --Itub (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I will try to get the work done next week! You spotted the obvious things, which I always miss. The chem and phys properties should be separated. --Stone (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated osmium for GA.--Stone (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi itub. For the Osmium article it would be good if you can find out what the compound is which has the oxidation state -2. My suggestion would be Na₂Os(CO)₅. The osmium carbonyl hydrids are no exapmle because there the hydrogen is H^-. I tried to find it in my books, but could not locate a source for oxidation state -2. Thanks.--Stone (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Na₂Os(CO)₄, not Na₂Os(CO)₅. Probably in Comprehensive Organometallic Chem. I'll check later. Nice to see you around again, by the way. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

. ISBN 389308116X. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) page 64 gives Os(CO)₄^2- ; Os₃(CO)₁₁^2- ; Os₅(CO)₁₅^2- ; Os₆(CO)₁₈^2- --Stone (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found two good refs and added them to the article! --Stone (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you for your comments at WT:CHEMS. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		To Itub, for polite dialogue. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Ions in Life Sciences

Thanks for the reference idea. I have done the same for the other publishers. BTW are you still in Basel? I have known Helmut and Astrid Sigel for many years and the idea for this article came up at a meeting with them in Pisa, this June. Petergans (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in Basel anymore, but in New York. I think I met Helmut Sigel once. About the references: the template fanatics may not be satisfied with a link to the publisher's website, because they may say its self-published and self-interested and doesn't prove notability. If you want to make really sure that they'll go away you can add references to book reviews published in scientific journals. I found one the other day in Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 824, but it didn't say much about the series as a whole, since the review was about a volume on nickel. I don't know if you have convenient access, but I can send you the PDF if you want. --Itub (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you had already added some review references. :) --Itub (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Salt_bridge?

A very cordial thanks for your very extensive contributions in chemistry. Would it be proper to ask whether you'd consider taking a look at Galvanic_cell and especially the article upon which it depends, Salt_bridge? As is obvious from the talk page for Galvanic_cell, the lack of clarity in both articles causes much confusion for new (and not-so-new) students. I've been hoping an expert might undertake a review of those pages for quite some time. Thanks, Ohiostandard (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll take a look at the talk page to see what the concerns are and see if I can offer a comment, but honestly I don't have much time for improving articles right now. You might want to drop a line at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry to see if anyone volunteers. --Itub (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the transactinide category be included as an additional color on the Wikipedia table?

Your thoughts would be appreciated here. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Itub (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Elements Triple Crown

See: Wikipedia:Triple_Crown/Nominations#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements. Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Elements Triple Crown

Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the platinum crown motivate you to contribute more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]