Archives |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
Welcome!
Hello, EdChem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Contents
Nitrogen dioxide
Hi, I didn't understand "this sentence should end "nitrogen(II) oxide"." Peter Damian (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Peter, I just meant that, in formatting terms, Wikicology's "Nitrogen (II) oxide" should actually be "nitrogen(II) oxide" - if that were the compound being described. My point was that scientists know the conventions for writing names, which makes it odd that Wikicology does not appear familiar with him. The situation deteriorates, too, when it is recognised that he does not mean NO (nitric oxide / nitrogen(II) oxide) at all. Should I clarify what I wrote in the evidence? EdChem (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was the 'thus' that confused me. "Oxidation states are not separated from the element to which they refer. Thus, this sentence should end "nitrogen(II) oxide"." I couldn't follow the logical step because I don't know what an 'oxidation state' is. It might help to clarify for dummies like me. Thanks. Really useful points you make there. Peter Damian (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- The roman numerals in parentheses are oxidation states. Nitrogen(II) oxide = NO whilst nitrogen(IV) oxide = NO2, a distinction which Wikicology appears not to understand. Carbon(I) oxide would be C2O if it existed, not the CO which Wikicology meant. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- The roman numerals in parentheses are oxidation states. Nitrogen(II) oxide = NO whilst nitrogen(IV) oxide = NO2, a distinction which Wikicology appears not to understand. Carbon(I) oxide would be C2O if it existed, not the CO which Wikicology meant. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was the 'thus' that confused me. "Oxidation states are not separated from the element to which they refer. Thus, this sentence should end "nitrogen(II) oxide"." I couldn't follow the logical step because I don't know what an 'oxidation state' is. It might help to clarify for dummies like me. Thanks. Really useful points you make there. Peter Damian (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
What confused me was the roman numeral in e.g. 'Nitrogen II oxide'. What does it mean? I initially thought, like Wc, that it refers to the number of oxygen atoms. It means something else, right? Also, it seems like a beginners type mistake, yes? Peter Damian (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Ah right, Oxidation state. So the roman II refers to the oxidation state. It seems like this is a very gross error, yes? He confused the expression for Nitrogen oxide with something else? Peter Damian (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- As you have found, the (II) refers to the oxidation state of the nitrogen in the compound. For two-element compounds, the each oxidation state times the number of that atom present cancels to zero. Since the oxidation state of oxygen is always -II in compounds, nitrogen(II) oxide will be NO as a +2 nitrogen will cancel a -2 oxygen. For nitrogen(IV) oxide, we have a +4 nitrogen and so need two -2 oxygens to balance the charge, and so nitrogen(IV) oxide is NO2. Wikicology also made the mistake of thinking carbon(I) oxide was CO when it would actually be C2O and doesn't exist. Carbon monoxide is CO, and would be carbon(II) oxide under this naming system.
Yes, I consider this a beginner mistake, it is certainly taught at High School in Australia. It was also for this reason that his answer which classed beryllium poisoning as an example of gas poisonings was a surprise, as any chemist should know that beryllium is a solid at room temperature. Further, beryllium poisoning is characterised by granulomas (from wiki-page: a "granuloma is an inflammation found in many diseases. It is a collection of immune cells known as histiocytes. Granulomas form when the immune system attempts to wall off substances it perceives as foreign but is unable to eliminate.") formed by the body to deal with solid particles of beryllium. Gas poisonings aren't like this, and while some symptoms might be superficially similar, I would expect a biochemist to understand the process and the differences.
Another example is the statement from the biochemical effects part of the article " It also causes a decrease in Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase which may results in Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency known as favism, a condition that predisposes to hemolysis (spontaneous destruction of red blood cells).[47]" Ref 47 is another rat study on NO2, which is a questionable basis for such a broad statement. More disturbingly, the abstract states that "The activities of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and glutathione reductase were significantly higher than those in the control group for the 9-month exposure. In the 18-month exposure, however, they showed a tendency to return to control level." Any scientist *should* know that the control group is the one not exposed to the test and so the abstract actually says that the levels of this enzyme were higher in the treatment group but the article says the levels decreased.
As you can see from the section below, I have been asked to shorten my evidence but I want the points made to be clear. I am highlighting examples that suggest limited understanding of the chemistry, poor choice of sources, and mistaken interpretation of those sources, in addition to sources being incorrect as you have noted. The more I trim my presentation, the more unclear I fear it becomes. Also, since expertise is not recognised on WP, I wonder whether to add something on my own editing to establish my chemistry knowledge is accepted by other editors. Any and all advice welcomed. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Another useful example from the lead of the article is this sentence:
- Known sources of Nitrogen gas poisoning includes automobile exhaust, Power stations, The toxicity may also results from non-combustible sources such as the one released from anaerobic fermentation of food grains and Anaerobic digestion of Biodegradable waste.[
- Firstly, nitrogen gas poisoning is the bends and has nothing to do with nitrogen dioxide poisoning. Secondly, "anaerobic fermentation" is wikilinked to lactic acid fermentation, which doesn't involve nitrogen (it is a major source of methane from sugars). Thirdly, the linked anaerobic digestion page show that nitrogen in these cases ends up mostly as ammonia. The reference does mention nitrogen and its oxides, but a biochemist should know that significant NO2 production requires oxygen (ie. aerobic not anaerobic conditions) and that the anaerobic product of metabolising nitrogen is overwhelmingly ammonia. In other words, interpreting the reference appropriately requires recognition that one of the products listed is vastly more significant in terms of quantity than are the others.
I also notice that the description of nitrogen dioxide in the lead is incomplete, in that it is a red-brown gas but exists in equilibrium as colourless dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and at low temperatures this second form is the dominant form. It does not become colourless though the colour intensity may fade to be not noticeable as concentration decreases, in addition to reacting to form N2O4.
Coming back to your original question, my impression is Wikicology is enthusiastic about science but has knowledge gaps that I would hope not to see in a graduate in the field. Whether the handling of references is careless or ignorant or deceptive is arguable, but it is problematic no matter what. EdChem (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion: I edited your comments above and placed them here. Please amend as necessary and add any other material that would help people understand the nature of the case. Arbitrators often accept links to evidence, or they might even accept a longer 'group' submission. It's important that we all understand that there are significant factual errors. Peter Damian (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter Damian: I have expanded my evidence based on the above. Any thoughts / comments welcome. EdChem (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me :) Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Your evidence submission in the Wikicology arbitration case
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is just under 800 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Request noted. Options under consideration / discussion above. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Extension of word limits
Hi EdChem. As this is particularly relevant to you (re. word limits), and a drafter requested you be notified, here is a cross-posted announcement recently made on behalf of the case drafters:
Thanks. For the drafters, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kharkiv07 and L235: I have expanded my evidence, thanks for the notifications. EdChem (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Chemistry mistakes
WC has given reasons here why he made mistakes in the chemistry articles. It doesn't make sense to me. Could you help? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I saw it and am planning to comment on the Workshop. First impression was it didn't make sense to me as an explanation for how they happened. EdChem (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter Damian: Analysis added to Workshop page. EdChem (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks that explains it all very well. Peter Damian (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pentamethylcyclopentadiene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VCH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup 2016 May newsletter
Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.
Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.
If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)