User talk:Alsosaid1987

Thank you for uploading File:Parikh-doeringexample.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Parikh-doeringscheme.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cobalamin.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parikh-doeringexample.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Parikh-doeringexample.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Parikh-doeringexample.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Woodhoff.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We really need chemists who know advanced material and are willing to explain basic general information to others. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are:

• Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
• Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest. Many new editors cite themselves mainly. That behavior is inappropriate.

If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Again: WP:SECONDARY, not primary.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And once it's on Commons, It can be transcribed into material at Wikibooks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a quick piece of friendly advice: you've opened your response with a personalized comment. Often, in Wiki, substantive discussions can get buried under personal acrimony. I don't think you should take Slawomir's comments personally, and it might be advisable to remove your first sentence. (Also, you left your comment in the wrong section :). ) All the best, JBL (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JBL! Mostly said in a moment of irrationality. I'll remove it. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calculus on Manifolds (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chain (mathematics). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Woodhoff.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the lead has a link to the article reaction quotient. Also, the first section of the article gives a full explanation. Therefore there is no need to include a detailed description of reaction quotient in the lead. Perhaps there should also be a link in the main text, section Basic definitions and properties " reaction quotient Qt (a function of time...)"?

I shall revert your edit unless you give a convincing reason to keep it. If you have one, please post it to my talk page. Petergans (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________ I have reverted a long list of changes because at least one of them contained a fundamental; error of chemistry.

It is wrong to assert that equilibrium is never achieved. The reason for this is that chemical equilibrium is a dynamic process Dynamic equilibrium, not a one-way process. Therefore it will be achieved in a finite time. Mostly, after a change in composition, equilibrium is reached in 1-30 minutes. However, there are some chemical systems that are extremely slow to come to equilibrium; an equilibrium constant cannot be measured for such systems, so they are out of the scope of this article.

Please note that I am an expert in this field (retired from Leeds University). I understand that you are acting in good faith,trying to make the article easier for a non-chemist to understand. However, this cannot mean "dumbing down" at the expense of scientific accuracy.

I had to revert all of your edits in order to return to a version I know to be error-free. If you wish to make further edits, may I suggest that you make them in your sandbox and let me know when they are ready to be posted.

You may find it helpful to look at Equilibrium chemistry which I created. This article contains useful background material. Petergans (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a very interesting aspect in the above comments re the speed of reaching equilibrium. This leads to the question how can that be expressed in formulae!--82.137.13.12 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's quite straightforward, just a bunch of algebraic manipulation: Consider A<->B with forward and backward rate constants k and k'. And let x=[A]_0-[A]. Then we can write the differential rate law as dx/dt=k([A]_0-x)-k'([B]_0+x). It's not hard to show from there that the integrated rate law is ln((k[A]_0-k'[B]_0)/(k[A]_0-k'[B]_0-(k+k')x))=(k+k')t. Now let x_eq=[A]_0-[A]_eq. At equilibrium dx/dt=0, so the differential rate law gives k[A]_0-k'[B]_0=(k+k')x_eq. Substituting into the integrated rate law gives our final result: [A]-[A]_eq=([A]_0-[A]_eq)e^(-(k+k')t), as I asserted earlier on Petergans's talk page. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting in this context to analyze the interaction between equilibrium and chemical kinetics including associated diffusion aspects and possible involvement of activity coefficients, partial molar property and apparent molar property of components in rate equations.--ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn)--82.137.13.189 (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone to some lengths to try to understand why we appear to be in fundamental disagreement. I obtained a copy of the paper in Chem. Ed. N.Z and have bought a copy of Atkins and Beran and have read thoroughly the relevant chapters. My conclusion is that that it's a question of phase. Atkins & Beran concentrate on reactions in the gas phase, whereas the article is mostly concerned with equilibria in solution. The figure of 10^-5 for an equilibrium constant seems to have been derived from data in table 13.3 on p501 of A&B.

Acid/base and similar reactions in solution are usually very fast. For example, when a solution of a weak acid such as acetic acid is titrated with a strong base such as sodium hydroxide, equilibrium is established almost as soon as a drop of titrant becomes thoroughly mixed in the solution containing the titrate. Proof of this is given by the fact that the indicator changes colour almost instantaneously at the end-point of the titration.

May I make one final comment? Reaction kinetics is not relevant in the context of the article as it deals with the situation where equilibrium has been established. Petergans (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alsosaid1987! I notice you are a math-inclined person. How do you consider, especially from a mathematical point of view, the aspects discussed at talk:Apparent molar property, talk:Gibbs-Duhem equation and Darken's equations (in connection to at least ternary to/and n-ary mixtures/systems?) Thanks! --ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn)--82.137.10.99 (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn), Thanks for bringing these to my attention. I think the discussion on apparent molar property on the multicomponent system is mostly missing definitions of variables from the original author. I expanded the discussion on the relationship to partial molar quantities. With respect to Gibbs-Duhem, I'm unsure of the wisdom of reproducing the entire (complicated!) derivation presented by in the 1950 JACS paper. There was some misinterpretation of the partial derivative notation, but I think that's been sorted out. Judging by the papers citing this article, it's of considerable importance to solid state chemistry and materials science, but as mostly an organic/organometallic chemist with interests in the mechanistic/kinetics aspect of things, this is far afield for me, and I can't fully appreciate the importance. I know even less about the Darken's equations. My apologies! Best wishes, Alsosaid1987 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good aspects mentioned for clarifications. I'd say that these equations about multicomponent systems have universal applicability like the notion partial molar property and phase diagram including in (organo)metallic chemistry and mechanistic/kinetics aspects by considering, for example the thermodynamic aspects encountered together with reaction-diffusion systems. An interesting aspect connected with which provides an unified approach for both organic and solid state metal alloys is that of ternary system with partial miscibility like, for instance, the system of three liquids containing benzene, acetone and water. The main function of apparent molar property of a component in a mixture is to isolate the contribution of each component to the feature of non-ideal solution of the mixture. Of course, in connection to the mentioned aspects for clarification, some combinatorial properties can be established by grouping components' apparent molar properties not only for one component but also by 2, 3, ..., n-1, n, n being the mixture itself.--82.137.13.189 (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regarding to the previous section aspects I mention the ternary plot representations involving ratios of amounts of components grouped by 2. --ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn)--82.137.13.189 (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn): Thanks very much for bringing these to my attention! I will carefully look at these pages when I get a chance to. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From an (applied) math perspective I bring to your attention chemical reaction network theory where thermodynamic, diffusion and kinetic aspects can meet.--ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn)--82.137.13.189 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re TDK aspects interaction I mention a relation similar to Molar_concentration#Sum_of_products_molar_concentrations-partial_molar_volumes encountered somewhere in some article from Journal of Solution Chemistry where partial molar properties are in the same formula with mass diffusivityies.--ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn)--82.137.13.189 (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relation between these quantities and of course apparent molar properties (and solvation shell interactions) is also very interesting to clarify.--ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn)--82.137.13.189 (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Woodward–Hoffmann rules, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Correlation diagram (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additions to Stokes' Theorem. Could you please add a reference to where you got that information? Thanks! Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see refs 12 and 13. Thanks!

Alsosaid1987 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make explicit to you that of the 9 edits of a recent comment that looks to be yours 4 are attributed to an IP-editor 67.186.58.77. If it was you (forgot to log in? You get a warning about this.), or you know about it, all is fine, otherwise you might want check the comment. Regards, Purgy (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and they are indeed me. I often log out to check out how math articles would display. I must have forgotten to log back in when I made these changes/additions to my comments. I certainly did not intend for this to appear like any sort of shady business. I'll be more careful with talk page comments. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Logarithm shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, another request related to the logarithm article: please do not change the formatting (tex vs math markup) without establishing broad consensus on the talk page before-hand. It is common etiquette to respect the formatting of a present article, especially in the case of an FA. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so much a matter of establishing consensus as having an article that is not a hodge-podge of formatting. Given that most of the formulae of any complexity are already in TeX, there is no reason to have a second format for expressions that are "less complicated" using a crippled markup system whose reason for existence I really cannot understand. If it were possible to typeset everything using the math template, I would understand if there is some objection to my reformatting. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry in advance for this tl;dr. I came here since I hope you perceived me as sort of supporting your pertinent views, and because of seeing this matter somewhat derailing. I want to spread the odour of peace and understanding by describing my views on the history.

1. You started at 06:42, 30 April 2018‎ by radically amending/changing an -imagine!- FA, without any warning and gathering of support on the TP. That is mostly always a no-no on WP.
2. I tried to improve on this a bit and stated my doubts (14:53, 30 April 2018) about the g(l)ory details being appropriate near the definition.
3. Jakob.scholbach, improbable, but perhaps triggered by a flaw of mine, stated him being unhappy with our edits (23:41, 30 April 2018‎). What a nice move!
4. I immediately reacted by first correcting my rubbish (08:03, 1 May 2018), and then by taking "down" the most disputed chapter, reaching an almost identical state of the prominent first chapters, just leaving variants of formal definitions below the conceptual definition (12:37, 2 May 2018).
5. Here, imho, the disaster is rooted in: (13:48, 2 May 2018‎) by Dmcq's steps of radically reverting all efforts to expand the intuitive notion from integers to reals, instead of continuing the discussion, that Jakob.scholbach introduced so politely: logarithm is a real function—period. This is also the moment where I withdrew there any engagement of mine. The result of Dmcq's edits, taken by themselves, were not so bad as the effect of discontinuing the discussion. You and Dicklyon launched minor edits, but the real nuking comes next:
6. The presumptive troll Brian Everlasting (check the history of his deeds, and don't misconceive any single battle!) brought D. Eppstein into the game (17:54, 2 May 2018), by ridiculously crediting him for the state of the article after a reversion he did. After this, sadly, there was mostly just escalation and retaliation. You laughed about the dense Eppstein being compact, please, laugh again when considering his connectedness, and, please, calm down when being bombarded by CAPITAL letters after "WP:", regardless by whom.

Since Logarithm is a FA, it really should be touched with extreme sensibility, if at all. Please, immerse yourself into the longstanding debates of how to change what. The quarrels about math rendering are way more tolerable nowadays, and I hope you stay clear off debates about neighbourhoods, behaviours, and date-formats. Cheers, Purgy (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purgy Purgatorio, thanks for the very level-headed analysis of this sequence of events. It is a complete mystery to me how such bad prose and questionable content was able to reach FA status in the first place, but having that status does not make an article sacred.

It is these capital letters that is the ruin of Wikipedia. I do admit fault here, for making very radical changes in the first place, ones I quickly realized were ill-conceived. However, certain editors have such a high opinion of themselves as Wikipedia 'policemen' that as soon as they make a personal judgment against someone, they will hide behind a flurry of WP:xxxxxx to prevent this person from ever making changes to an article again. I made a good faith effort to listen to all opinions about the technicality level, and at the end, made very modest changes that fixed the flaws in the English and at least give a complete definition, in a broad sense, but those changes were reverted by User:David Eppstein without any real consideration. This is how you get an ossified article like the one on logarithms, where terrible prose and a sophomoric, incomplete definition is allowed to take the place of several readily imaginable good ones.

The problem with trolls like User:Brian Everlasting is that there are plenty of busybodies, who never take the time to actually read an edit, who will be more than happy to facilitate his trolling, in an effort to maintain some kind of ill-defined "consensus", sometimes consisting of a mere two or three editors who believe only the status quo of an article is worth defending. This sort of self-appointed policing will hollow out the core articles of Wikipedia, the ones readers turn to everyday, leaving only second-tier and lower ones to be debated freely and continually improved. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like some vandalism by User:Truthful8 from April 27 that nobody noticed until you did today:( Not sure if that or any intervening edit deleted or changed other details that should be revived...I don't have time to look further right now. DMacks (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, DMacks -- I was trying to scrutinize the sentence to try to make some sense of it, but should've realized that it was vandalism. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. DMacks is misinformed and in an attempt to discredit the truth uses the word vandalism. It is an uneducated ploy regarding organic plant based science versus inorganic petro chemical chemistry.

Truthful8 (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a pillar of wikipedia. It is your WP:BURDEN to provide a reliable source for any content you wish to add. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor. Hint: petrochemicals come from (formerly) living matter. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truthful8, please explain what you meant by the sentence in question, and maybe I will reconsider whether it constitutes vandalism. As it stands, the sentence does not use the terms "organic" and "inorganic" in any way that I'm familiar with. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the book series Inorganic Syntheses. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/series/2146 A small minority of the articles describe preps of compounds lacking CH bonds. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, thanks for pointing this out. I didn't go through all of them, but apparently, bis(trifluoromethyl)sulfoxide, for instance, is considered by my inorganic colleagues to be part of their domain. Be that as it may, I think most organic chemists would also consider this molecule to be in their domain as well! I think the C-H bond definition is much too narrow, as it excludes things like carbon tet, oxalyl chloride, etc. that are almost universally considered "organic" compounds. Personally, I think anything with a C-H, C-C or C-Hal bond in it is organic, but that's just my personal aesthetic! Alsosaid1987 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, for the record, although I personally don't agree with it, the C-H bond definition is a legitimate opinion. The debate is on the nonsense sentence about "C-isomers" and "N-isomers" being a distinguishing criterion of "organic" compounds that Truthful8 had added to the article. At this point, it is unclear to be whether this contributor is seriously ill-informed, suffering from delusions, or is a vandal. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left the note about Inorg. Syntheses for the benefit of that Truthful8. Who knows what Truthful8 is up to, but their opinions so far look very fringe-y.

It is difficult to extract an official statement from textbooks, but organic, inorganic and organometallic chemists dont care about precise definitions of their areas of scholarship. In fact, the strength of emotion seems to anti-correlate with ones prowess in these areas.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the term re lack of care about precise definitions of their areas of scholarship and I wonder: Is this due to the fuzzy nature of the notion area of scholarship?--109.166.136.245 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Smokefoot. Indeed, I like Roald Hoffmann's view in his forward to "Orbital Interactions in Chemistry" that chemists sometimes like to divide themselves into categories like organic, inorganic, and materials, while chemistry recognizes no such differences, and that "molecules are molecules" however they are classified. Many insights also arise from applying ideas from one realm to another (e.g., aromaticity and ferrocene). Moreover, I also find it odd that CN- and CO2 are singled out as "inorganic" when they are perfectly legitimate C1 sources for organic synthesis. Anyway, the whole debate is sort of pointless. Nevertheless, Wikipedia should try to present all reasonable points of view on the question of what's organic and what's inorganic. I have tried to point out that there are different levels of "inorganicness." For instance, almost everyone would view cementite (Fe3C) as inorganic; CCl4 is much more nuanced; finally, there are probably more people who view C12O9 as organic than inorganic. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because your lack of knowledge regarding isomers and why they differ, I agree with an inquisitive approach for your own curious regard. Good luck. Truthful8 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are contributing in good-faith, please consider educating yourself on some fundamentals of chemistry before making further contributions. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If any opportunity exists to terraform what atmosphere would spawn more organic synthesis? An atmosphere that consisted of nitrogen or an atmosphere that consisted of carbon? In my opinion the truth is all around us. Truthful8 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review of RuO4 as a reagent: Ruthenium(VIII) Oxide" Victor S. Martín, José M. Palazón, Carmen M. RodríguezC. Richard Nevill, Douglas K. Hutchinson, 2013 DOI: 10.1002/047084289X.rr009.pub3. This series gives readers an encyclopedic overview.

If we cite lots primary sources, then who is to decide which of the 1275 sources (in the case of RuO4, according to ChemAbs today) to select? It is this problem that we solve by mainly adhering to secondary or even better, WP:TERTIARY sources. Otherwise, Wikipedia will be overwhelmed by minutia and "my hot new result" by research groups around the globe. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smokefoot, I agree with the need for secondary references. However, in chemistry and organic synthesis in particular, I maintain that primary references have their place in showing what the scope and limitations of a transformation or reagent are, as well as insights into optimal conditions and strategic value. Although most of these things are indeed usually explained in secondary sources, they are often more apparent in examples from the primary literature. As you said, I think the main problem with primary sources is their use as a subtle tool of self-promotion. Out of all the primary sources I've cited, I've never cited myself. (I have cited myself once as a secondary source, however.) Alsosaid1987 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I removed the recent total synthesis citation in favor of a review on oxidative arene degradation (almost half of which talks about RuO4), since the RuO4 oxidation constitutes only a minor part of the total synthesis, and no particular insight into the chemistry is given. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alsosaid1987: thanks for the note. I agree that it is impossible to avoid primary references. I also cite them for X-ray structures (of inorganic things), historic "firsts", and when I just cannot find decent reviews, etc. Thanks for listening. As you start watching pages, you will start to see a lot of primary citations. They come from two main sources: (i) self-promotion and (ii) students trying to prove themselves. End of sermon. Cheers and best wishes. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you say that C₅H₅^– is a poor example of conjugation because it has a triplet ground state. Do you have a ref for it being triplet? This specific chemical is widely used as an example of Hückel aromaticity with all electrons paired and π conjugation spread across the whole structure. The most I can find is Jann–Teller distortion to break the perfect pentagonal symmetry so that the π² and π³ MOs not degenerate. But that still doesn't have any bearing on there being lots of conjugation around the ring (even if not equally shared). DMacks (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or is the technical problem that the "C:" is not tagged with a –1 formal charge, meaning it is a carbene rather than the carbanion I had assumed could be meant here (if it were to have a hydrogen attached as well as a lone-pair)? Regardless, doesn't the triplet diradical have resonance also? This article is definitely not about "aromatic stabilization" but instead all kinds of resonance. DMacks (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was referring to the lack of a formal charge, which would imply a carbene species. That it is a ground state triplet is well established [1], and easily rationalized by the fact that a singlet carbene would either have a lone pair in an sp2-like orbital, but have an antiaromatic 4e pi system, or have a 6e aromatic pi system, but have an unfavorable sp2 empty orbital. As a compromise, one electron goes into each orbital. Thus, cyclopentadienylidene is would be a 5e system. Of course, it is still a good example of a conjugated system, but there are more complications than is reasonable for a introductory article. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. The carbene is definitely a diradical triplet, I would rationalize it the same obvious ways. I'm not sure the new image is great (they are all the same idea of 6π heterocyclic, and one is not even cojugated--good example for aromaticity discussions though). Maybe one example of aromatic, one of allyl, one radical? DMacks (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- I can put something like that together. I agree that the examples shown should not all be cyclic, aromatic cases. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alsosaid1987. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Edward Kosower, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Edward Kosower to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks,

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking note. I've added three references, one of which is the subject's website at Tel Aviv University. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oxyacid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Group 8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		keep up your fine work (although we reserve the right to disagree). Thousands and thousands of readers benefit from your contributions. Smokefoot (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, thanks for the support! I know that I can come across as being strongly opinionated at times. Nonetheless, I greatly value your opinion, both from the point of view of Wikipedia (you're a more experienced editor) and chemistry (you're probably a more senior academic than I am). Anyway, it's nice to see knowledgeable synthetic chemists on Wikipedia -- chemistry's a small community, so I'm sure we'll come across each other at talks and conferences at some point without knowing. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Humanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xunzi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit added several refs that use incorrectly parsed data from a bibliographic entry at some other website or database. For example:

• {{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/822971422|title=Organic chemistry|last=1937-|first=Carey, Francis A.,|others=Giuliano, Robert M., 1954-|isbn=9780073402741|edition=Ninth edition|location=New York, NY|oclc=822971422}}

puts Carey's whole name in |first= and his life-years in |last= rather than the correct parsing of first and last name (and ignoring the year). Guiliano likewise includes the life-years in the |other= field. In:

• {{Cite web|url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo035189m|title=Resonance Energies of the Allyl Cation and Allyl Anion: Contribution by Resonance and Inductive Effects toward the Acidity and Hydride Abstraction Enthalpy of Propene|last=and|first=Josiah B. Barbour|last2=Karty*|first2=Joel M.|date=2004-01-14|website=pubs.acs.org|language=en|doi=10.1021/jo035189m|access-date=2019-01-06}}

the asterisk by Karty's last name is obviously blindly cut'n'pasted from a journal article's author list rather than recognizing that this is a only an editorial footnote within the scope of the article itself. And:

• {{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/19975337|title=Chemical applications of group theory|last=1930-2007.|first=Cotton, F. Albert (Frank Albert),|date=1990|publisher=Wiley|isbn=0471510947|edition=3rd ed|location=New York|oclc=19975337}}

is another example of cut'n'pasting a bibliographic entry without looking at the actual author's names to notice the mis-use of fields. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the careful read! I fixed the errors. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the following, we are looking for secondary sources rather than a Wikipedians interpretation of the primary sources. Also we need more meta data for the ref. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In Chinese culture, Confucianism gave a nuanced view of whether suicide is permissible. On the one hand, in the Analects, Confucius stated that the gentleman should not stay alive at the expense of ren (humanity, benevolence).^[1] On the other hand, the Classic of Filial Piety quotes Confucius as saying that one's body is a gift from one's parents, and one should not dare to harm or destroy it.^[2] Nevertheless, in premodern times, suicide was viewed as an honorable way out, particularly when death as a captive or by capital punishment was seen as unavoidable. Given the importance of filial piety, there was a strong preference for methods which left the body comparatively unmutilated, like poisoning, hanging, or drowning."

I agree. I don't think there is anything factually inaccurate here, but feel free to remove, because I couldn't find a suitable secondary source. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the time and have the inclination, take a look at cross-coupling reaction and Ullmann condensation. My approach to these topic is to aim for an overview and avoid big mistakes. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, when I have the time. Thanks for the suggestion! Alsosaid1987 (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually four reasonable mechanisms (SET, single-electron atom transfer, sigma-bond metathesis, and RE-OA) for Ullmann type reactions. There is actually little consensus on which is operative (and Buchwald and Hartwig and Ribas, among others have differing opinions as to which is most important), and is very likely substrate, condition, and ligand dependent. These other mechanisms should be illustrated. I'll try to put something together at some point. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors associated with Wiki Chem avoid words in our graphics. This approach facilitates use of graphics in other language Wikipedia articles. Details are placed into the caption. It is ACIE's style. The approach has other advantages: it keeps a focus on general (encyclopedic) information vs details. And for editors that like to mention lots of details, they can be updated. Just sayin'. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep this in mind in future figures that I prepare -- I'll keep words to a a minimum, although I have seen quite a few figures in English wikipedia where the origin is French or German... Still, there is a good argument for using chemical notation as a universal language. Thanks for bringing this up! Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alsosaid1987! I have noticed your edits at mathematical induction, therefore I request from you some comments on the associated talk page re the significance of n in the tacit expression P(n) of the property P vs n as a sequence variable in an explicite predicate variable P(x_n). Thanks!--109.166.136.245 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think of math induction in chemical context? Some examples connected to the structure of induction would be individual substances with a common general formula like alkanes C_nH_{2n + 2}. Of course the set of alkanes is infinite and the individual alkanes with a certain k number of carbon atoms are the individual constants which form the universe set or domain of discourse attached to a general Property P(n) of an alkane, property when ascribed to each individual alkane generates a set of singular/individual logical propositions about each individual case, thus being true for all members of the set/category of alkanes (substances of certain type).--109.166.136.245 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking an example for a property of alkanes to apply the scheme of reasoning of infinite/math induction, say, the property of being solid in standard conditions, S(n) the general structure/logical form of the sentence is For every x_n, n starting at 18, Sx_n, where x_k is an (individual) alkane.--109.166.136.245 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding you at all, you are getting at the distinction between predicate P having the variable be some kind of object, which may be labeled or parameterized as x_1, x_2, ..., x_n versus the use of the labels 1, 2, ..., n themselves as the variable. I guess I am wondering when that distinction becomes critical. (Please let me know if I am missing your point.) Alsosaid1987 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is valid. Indeed individual objects/individual constants are involved, x_k, x_k+1..., are individual constants/objects which form the domain of the object/(individual) variable x_n, variable that gives the (specified) subjects of the predicate scheme. The explicite labeling x_n instead of just n is like the function composition of arguments, f(g(x)) or f(x(n)) instead of just f(x) or f(n). The starting point in my edits to math induction is the statement, first sentence in article, saying the property P(n) hold/is true for all natural numbers, sentence that seemed unclear to me. I was wondering what exactly was the effect/consequence of the natural numbers to/that determine the truth value of a logical sentence? It seems suspect that the notion of natural number determine the truth of a sentence, n is like a dummy variable, not the possible logical subjects of the predicate scheme.--109.166.136.245 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An important aspect of the math induction is recurrence property, the property for an individual case implies the property for the next individual case P(x(n)) ⇒ P(x(n+1)), the chain induction which step by step goes through the whole infinite set of natural numbers and assures the thruth of the property ascribed for an infinite number of cases. I have been thinking for instance whether such a property could be found to be true for all prime numbers.--109.166.136.245 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alsosaid! I see on your page that you have you have involvement in organometallic compounds research. What specific aspects of this subject matter are involved in your research? Thanks!--185.53.199.17 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my research group is pursuing the catalytic chemistry of iron complexes Alsosaid1987 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Old Chinese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guoyu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what happened, but thanks for reverting that giant deletion that I made. I am still trying to figure out what drove that edit because it looks pretty dramatic. Maybe I'll remember and then get back in touch.

One other thing. Metallorganics: I have looked everywhere for the definition. Yes, I understand what they are, but if you can find a solid definition, let me know. Main message is thank you, --Smokefoot (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot, I think Wikipedia has a great peer review system, and we are correct each other's less than ideal edits! You raised a headscratcher! I learned the distinction through word of mouth from organometallic course work in grad school, but I admit that I don't recall seeing the distinction stated in print. The IUPAC gold book certainly does not sanction a definition. And I couldn't find it in Hartwig or Crabtree. I have found one source: Encyclopedia of Interfacial Chemistry: Surface Science and Electrochemistry on p. 762, but I have also seen papers published in Pure Appl. Chem. no less that does not distinguish the two terms. I think the distinction needs to be qualified by a phrase like "some make the distinction that..." Thanks for pointing out the lack of a source! Alsosaid1987 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Vitamin B12 has been reverted twice. The proper next step is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article to see if a consensus can be achieved. My own opinion (as the second person to revert your addition) is that this information is not about the vitamin and does not belong anywhere in this article. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I just wanted to point out a mistake I noticed in the File:Schreiber.png you uploaded quite a long time ago:

I saw it in the page Cope rearrangement: the C-C double bond in the "cyclobutene" part of the molecule is misplaced (you can verify this in the source article accessible online). If that can be fixed it would be great, thank you!

Thanks for your good work. Bye, Pep-k (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pep-k,

Thank you for pointing this out! I will revise this within the next few days. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{tps}} While I agree (obviously) it's always best to follow the cited-ref sources, in this cases itn's it actually just a different conformation rather than a factually different chemical? The original (and this, that follows it) is a great example of a needlessly-confusing layout. Would be clearer (especially for purposes of illustrating Cope, where the ends of two alkenes react with each other) to swap the visual position of the vinyl and hydroxyl on the reactant side. DMacks (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was strange that I drew it this way, but then I remembered what the source was -- this was the way the molecule was shown in Nicolaou's Classics in Total Synthesis. At first, I thought it was indeed a mistake, and that the product showed the wrong E/Z geometry. But as you point out, both are Z configured, although I believe the wavy stereocenter is flipped (so 1:2 mixture of diastereomers).

I will change it. Alsosaid1987 (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]