Welcome!

Hello, Axiosaurus, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. You are completely right about eating an elephant one bite at a time - that's what Wikipedia is really good at. I set out a couple of years ago to write a page for every significant metal chloride - we only had a handful then, mostly stubs. I "practised" with some lanthanides, then worked though most of groups 1 and 2, then did AlCl3 and many of the first row transition metals, and finished up with a few like SnCl2 and AuCl3. I just wrote perhaps one article every week or two, but when you're working on a series of similar pages you get to know the relevant books, you can really crank our the work with citations. By summer 2005 there were perhaps 15-20 new or greatly expanded articles, I could see a real difference in our coverage - I think you would see the same. I found others joining in the challenge, I think you would too. Although I stopped that work at that point, coverage has probably doubled since then with the addition of nice articles like vanadium tetrachloride, which I've never even edited. Metal chlorides are of course just one little corner of chemistry, but they gave us some coverage of metal compounds.

Oh- be sure to let the Elements project know what you're up to. Once your element work is well under way, it will provide a foundation for others to build on - even if you don't write the article on chemistry of samarium someone else can follow your style. So please go ahead, I think these pages will be very helpful to Wikipedia, we will all be very grateful to you. Just go one element at a time! Thanks again, Walkerma 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, in response to your message on Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, the problem is that when you put in in-line references, each one has to end with </ref>, not <ref/>. You also need to put the tag <references /> at the bottom of the article. I've fixed the page for you. Tra (Talk) 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just took another look at your page and saw where you live. You might be interested to know that I grew up in Whitley Bay, and my brother now lives in Hartburn, Northumberland, quite close to you! He lives in Dr. Sharpe's tower, a mock pele, and he often has a steam roller parked in his driveway (all of us Walkers are rather eccentric!). I look forward to working with you on Wikipedia, and maybe you can join us for a pint when I'm next visiting the UK? Walkerma 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding thallium halides, I did some cleanup, I hope you're OK with what I did. If the sections get bigger we could change the ; format over to ===Smaller header=== sections, the main difference being that these show up in the table of contents. Headings (and also page names) on Wikipedia normally only have the first word capitalised - Thallium(I) fluoride not Thallium(I) Fluoride - unless it is a proper noun like United Nations. I think to expand the article I'd like to see a little more on things like reactions and applications - not just structure. We may also want to put some of the basic data (e.g. formula, colour, MP, solubility) into one big table, though we should perhaps discuss the layout in general for such tables first. I think it's an excellent start, you have something to be proud of! And you can be pretty sure that within a few weeks, anyone typing "thallium halides" (or even thallium(III) chloride) will see this as the #1 hit. We should probably still change the minus signs over to − at some point, but I need to go now and work up a Friedel-Crafts reaction! Cheers, Walkerma 18:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the pic, it is thallium iodide (click on it to see), not NaCl, Ben does a lot of very nice 3D pictures for us like that. If it's wrong, let us know about it. By all means edit the caption if you think it's confusing. My exposure to these things was in grad school, making ortho-iodophenols using I2 and TlOAc + phenols, you get a nice precipitate of orange-yellow TlI. I asked our safety officer how best to clean up the TlI, he didn't want me even to try - he said, "Just package up all the equipment you used into a big bucket, seal it up and we'll get rid of it that way." Thanks again for a nice page. Walkerma 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you know, I hadn't forgotten about the new halide pages, I've just been busy. Will try to look both Ga and In halides over this week. Let me know if you do the chalcogenides, too. Cheers, Walkerma 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'd suggest that if you plan to change the scope of the article away from BH₃ to all boranes, you should raise the subject over at WP:Chem. I have felt for a long time that we needed a good single article covering all the boranes, so I'm very glad to hear that you're working on it. It looks pretty nice so far. However, organic chemists do use BH₃ complexes a lot for reductions, so borane = BH₃ is often seen in the organic literature. I think I would propose keeping borane = BH₃, but call the new "family" page boranes, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. What do you think? Cheers, Walkerma 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to see someone go right after important topics in main group chem - WEchem needs that. I encourage you to include titles and DOI's for your references. I just cut and paste these things from tables of contents. This way, others can get a better idea of the content of the paper. Thanks, --Smokefoot 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to be of little help on the Al-B phases - Wiberg and Holleman indicate that AlB12 is known. I was interested in the nitride article - I had heard that Na2O reacts with H2 but did not know that the nitride underwent a comparable reaction. Cheers,--Smokefoot 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks great! Thanks especially for finding the crystal structure ref. Physchim62 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: your helpful query: I'll check later, after work (I am at lunch), but I hopefully did not delete much from this article. If I did, my error was not malicious, but one of neglect or sloppiness. I was trying to move the PRC info from the lede to the production part because it seems less general interest but highly relevant to the dynamics of the production part. Again, I will get to this later this evening.---- Smokefoot (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The table is very nice, and I am sure that other editors will fill it in over time. I have hopes of eventually writing a short article on S7. I think that the main rings from Steudel (and Schmidt) is captured even in his early reviews, such as Steudel, R., "Homocyclic Sulfur Molecules", Topics Curr. Chem., 1982, 102, 149. But you've got Greenwood and Earnshaw who give good coverage. I admire your attention to chemistry of important but often under-appreciated parts of the periodic table. Best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should be able to find the curation effort here. Check out the report here. This is all manual curation with the intent of confirming what's right (structure/names/CAS numbers) and using ChemSpider to help do so and also improving ChemSpider in the process. For example, I want ChemSPider to be structure searchable for "compounds"....organometallics are challenging to draw. Please drop me an email and we can chat via email about details if you want.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've been meeting on IRC; archived discussions are here. Perhaps you would like to join us every tuesday, 1600 GMT? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• My greatest apologies, didn't realise it was actually a user sub-page I reverted, I just saw a blank page. I'll undo my revert. My apologies again. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So, I was right to assume that you deleted the page intentionally? I was just patrolling recent changes, saw that page had been blanked, and reverted it. To be honest, I might have done it too quickly. I hate it when ClueBot beats me to it. Lol. Well, no harm done, I suppose. Steve Crossin (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Chemistry Bond Star
	I just wanted to say thanks for all your great contributions to chemistry articles - including catching my errors.  :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the rollback feature to your user account, and to those other trusted Wikipedia chemists. I hope this helps with reverting any vandalism or other inappropriate edits you come across. (If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few years ago Stone and I worked on these manganese oxides in the context of how KMnO₄ is produced industrially (judging from the edit activity, the KMnO₄ page is consulted often). So rename, revert, or whatever you think should be done. On the topic, aside from MnO₄^2-, the other oxide that really interests me is the blue Mn(V) species as mentioned in Manganate. BTW, I put up a short article on antimony tetroxide recently, which you are welcome to look over. With best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there

Since you're our resident inorg expert, could you have a look at these three? From its name, SrTiO3 sounds like a simple inorganic compound with Sr(2+) cation and TiO3(2-) anion, instead of a mixed oxide. However, I'm not sure enough to comment. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tag--I know a very unflattering joke about experts!

For my money strontium titanate is best described as a mixed oxide, it is one of those rare "ideal" undistorted perovskites. Perovskites - as Itub says don't have simple anionic units --however there is always some metal oxygen covalent character (for me the existence of ferro and anti ferromagnetic perovskites implying spin linkage on cations via occupied oxygen orbitals to form magnetic sub-lattices supports that view.)

Barium titanate is yet another perovskite but the structure is a bit distorted according to Wells, and it is unusual in that it has so many polymorphs. Wells (1983) says the cubic is not ferroelectric, which symmetry wise sounds right but I would need to look at that.

As for the last article on transition metal oxides well what can I say. --Axiosaurus (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Chemistry Bond Star
	For fixing the formerly terrible tungsten carbide article. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you edited several articles in this category. Shouldn't some of these articles {Rhenium heptafluoride, eg) be at their IUPAC names (rhenium(VII) fluoride, in this case)? shoy 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chemical compounds are normally named according to their "common names", what the common name is a matter for some debate, often at the chemicals page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals. If you think ReF₇ should be renamed then post a note there. cheers. --Axiosaurus (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be great if there were at least redirects from the IUPAC names though. shoy 20:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for an excellent section on exceptions to VSEPR. This was on my list of additions which needed to be made. I'm glad you have taken care of it. Dirac66 (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to make the same comment but Dirac beat me to it! I added a brief mention of other theories that sometimes work for transition metals, I hope you don't mind. --Itub (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is, it's a copy-and-paste move, which is not allowed due to GFDL. I'm going to go ahead and move the article, though, since it doesn't seem to be controversial. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The move should be complete, but Copper(I) sulfide isn't showing the right version for me...yet. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Here's what I did.

1. Deleted your version of Copper(I) sulfide.
2. Deleted Copper sulfide.
3. Moved Copper(I) sulfide to Copper sulfide, preserving the full edit history of the page.
4. Restored your version of Copper(I) sulfide.
5. Added a See also section to Copper sulfide, pointing to the I and II articles.
6. Reworded the intro to Copper(I) sulfide, providing links to Copper sulfide, Copper, and Sulfur.

FYI, for future reference: when you want to move an article wholesale like that, it needs to be done as a page move, which preserves the edit history. Since you'd have needed an admin to delete the target page to make way for the move, it would have been better to start discussion on the proposed page move. The ((move)) tag provides more info and pointers to the move request list, Wikipedia:Requested moves. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note, but you are operating way beyond my level with respect to nonstoichiometric Cu-S phases. Curiously, there are few or no molecular Cu((II) sulfides. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There have been many civilizations that have tried their hand at science, and they have all had their great masters. Their pupils respected them to the point that His Reverence the master OBE could not possibly be ever wrong. In Western science we don't do that. Yes Western science is harsh. It is why it advances. I honor Hume-Rothery OBE for advancing metallurgy into the modern era, I honor him for his guts to be a pioneer and go out on the free-electron limb. The Fermi-level of say gold however is about as spherical as a butterfly. His Reverence Sir Prof. Dr. Hume-Rothery OBE was wrong about that. Dead wrong. And even in being wrong he advanced science: he forced people to change their views. Some people at least. It is the ones that accuse me of harshness that want to stop that. Jcwf (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are also dead wrong about the existence of Cu(II) sulfide. See my thesis of 1981 Jcwf (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above headline is is the correct IUPAC name according to them. A triple cluster would contain the sufix "-ylium" in the name, this name does not however, and so does not contain a suspected triple lithium cluster.Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong. Ylium nomenclature is only used for groups 13–17. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how you would distinguish between Li₃⁺ and (Li⁺)₃. At the same time, you could quote us the IUPAC references for your inclusion of the word "ion" and your use of capital letters. Physchim62 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding this edit: I'd say that Ge in Ge2H6 is in oxidation state +3 rather than -3 because hydrogen is more electronegative than germanium. But well, we may just be using different conventions for assigning the oxidation states, and conventions are arbitrary. A less ambiguous example of Ge(III) would be Ge2Cl6, which is also known according to a couple of books I found on Google: [1], [2] In any case, I agree that talking of a Ge₂⁶⁺ "ion" doesn't make much sense. --Itub (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, once you are done with germanium, your inorganic chemistry expertise would be very welcome at iridium! We are trying to get it into a good article as well. --Itub (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I had completely forgotten Ge₂Cl₆. I am uncomfortable with "metal-metal bonded" oxidation states (although my thesis referred to Indium(II) and I happily edit quoting them !)- and as for hydrides, well I now leave the whole contentious area of oxidation number to Smokefoot--Axiosaurus (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Axiosaurus, thanks for starting the Tin(IV) fluoride‎ article. I've nominated it for the "Did you know". Please see the hook at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_October_22. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are some problems. You have to specify page numbers for the book references. Can you find citation for this -

Unlike the other tin tetrahalides, tin(IV) chloride, tin(IV) bromide, tin(IV) iodide which contain tetrahedrally coordinated tin, tin(IV) fluoride has a planar structure consisting of octahedra sharing four corners with the terminal, unshared, fluorine atoms trans to one another.

Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding the citation, and page numbers. Cheers, AdjustShift (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thats ok ... truth is what we are after.. does this stuff have a use? Victuallers (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another book that says that SnF4 is used in toothpaste. Is that one wrong too (honest question, I have no idea)? [3] --Itub (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer to myself, probably, because there are only a few google books hits for "SnF4 toothpaste" but there are hundreds for "SnF2 toothpaste"". --Itub (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect that that lonely book is wrong- Greenwoood and othere are very specific about the compound used industrially- for SnF₄ there are relatively few suppliers and it seems to be viewed as a speciality lab reagent- however there is this [4]which I would assume would contain SnF₄ but as the method of manufacture is not specified I did not mention it- I have a recollection (I can't find a reference at the moment) of a claim that SnF₄ may be a contaminant of SnF₂ used in toothpaste, but then I wonder in retrospect whether Sn₃F₈, the mixed valence compound, was the actual contaminant.--Axiosaurus (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Tin(IV) fluoride, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Regardless of what we do with DYK, isn't it standard for chemical equations to be balanced? That is, in the article, should Sn + F2 → SnF4 be Sn + 2F2 → SnF4, and should SnCl4 + 4HF → SnF4 + HCl be SnCl4 + 4HF → SnF4 + 4HCl? If we can fix the article, then we can use the equations for Did You Know. Art LaPella (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I changed the proposed DYK hook to match. Art LaPella (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 29 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article tin(IV) fluoride, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((adminhelp)) What can be done about the user Burhan Ahmed - he appears to be pushing up his edit count simply by adding tags to new articles (e.g hyponitrite which I added and from his contribs looks like he is still at it. He has been warned - but he deletes critical sections from his talk page. --Axiosaurus (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently he has been blocked for an unrelated reason. --Itub (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love the images of Keggin structure etc. Would you be interested in doing one for decavanadate? I believe that the article vanadium is being prepared for features article status and the decavanadate structure would be a great addition. Petergans (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for agreeing to help. I think the polhyhedron structure would be preferable. Petergans (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zineb is not listed in list of the examined substances, I think they missed it.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bother you again. I have just re-written oxyanion and a heptamolybdate structure would be very welcome in place of the decavanadate. Hopefully you have one partially ready. Best wishes. Petergans (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had seen the structure on molybdate, but I can't make it out. Linked octahedra would be better, but there's no rush as your decavanadate structure will do for the present. Thanks for your help. Petergans (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I actually made 2 mistakes in reference to the solubility of lead(II) sulfide. First, I was a decimal place too high for its solubility - I wrote 1.24 g/100 mL when it should have been 0.124 - I also wrote the solubility product as a -25 when it should be -29... at least that's what my reference tells me it should be. Thricecube (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, no references for my reference. In exact words, it says

Physical Properties

Black powder or cubic crystal; refractive index 3.91; density 7.60 g/cm3; Moh’s hardness 2.5; melts at 1,118°C; vapor pressure 1 torr at 852°C and 5 torr at 928°C; very slightly soluble in water (0.124 g/100 mL at 20°C); KSP 9.04x10–29 at 25°C; soluble in acids.

Hi, in the history log of this lemma I found you have added the IUPACname of the compound. On writing de dutch lemma discusion arose on the correct IUPAC naming of this compound. Are you able to identify the IUPACrules underlieing the name? I woukd be very pleased. Thanks, even for just noticing the question. T.vanschaik (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Regarding the oxidation number page, I've typed up a draft replacement (currently here) which I thought you might like to have a look at. This is only a first draft and I'm afraid I've rather gutted the contents but hopefully its something we can build off. Project Osprey (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've responded to your comments on my talk page (we should probably designate a single page to discuss all this, it likely to really drag on otherwise) Project Osprey (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we now have 3 subtly different counting rules? IUPAC have really made a mess of this but I think you've done a good a job of summing it up. Can't of been easy. I have a couple of thoughts/ideas:

• Concidering the range of counting methods I don't think my statements on haptic and bridging ligands can be held as true anymore.
• I never liked section on 'Spectroscopic oxidation states', as it starts by saying that these are "unmeasurable" but then goes on to discus how they may be messured. Is this section is actually talking about how formal charge dictates the size of the ionic radius?
• I think the difference between oxdation number and formal charge should be included somewhere.

Project Osprey (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I was away this weekend. If I'm to be honest I still don't understand the Spectroscopic oxidation state section but moving it to the oxidation state page does sound preferable (perhaps we could drop a note into the talk page to flag it for attention?). As for implementation - I agree that page total rebuilds often face resistance, however in this case you haven't actually removed much content and the page and it is tagged as needing work... so I'd be tempted to try it Project Osprey (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well there's been no chorus of disaproval, so I think its 'job well done'. Nice working with you ^_^ BTW could I ask a favour? We're having a long debate about an unimportant chemical (or should I say alloy?) here. There's not much consensus and as you seem to be quite stong on inorganic chemistry I though maybe you could settle things? Project Osprey (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put my two pennuth in as they say, but I suspect that PP is not for moving. Interesting compound, the only trans. metal hydride made from solution. The stability I suggest may in part be caused by the difference in close packing of Cu in metal and hydride. The article looks wrong, PP I think is quoting a Shriver paper about pyridine solutions, theres no ref, I'll flag it and see if he has one. Well CuH is a weird one, never come across it, I'd lumped all the t.metal hydrides together as brittle and grey. A brown / red t. metal hydride with aqueous chemistry! Looks like a freak compound formed from a H₂O.Cu hydride complex drying out. If they hadn't done a structure determination on it I wouldn't have believed it. Something new every day.Axiosaurus (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, I know it doesn't have any real uses but I find it oddly compelling - an interesting puzzle to try and figure out. I suspect you're right about PP, but maybe our varied points of view can eventually work to the benefit of the article. Project Osprey (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in case you didn't know, its now been flagged for merger. Project Osprey (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might have removed your request for citation. For some reason editor Plasmic Physics has got this thing about copper hydride not being a compound, being an alloy, or something related to metallic hydrogen that he thinks is implied in his sources. Possibly he and various editors have written quite extensively about a diatomic gas, giving its color and coordination properties. Perhaps I am being hasty, but it is probably flimsy writing so I cut it.

My main message is to thank you for your involvement. Plasmic and I often seem to have divergent views on chemistry, and so a 3rd party is helpful to keep the discussion moving forward. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I just saw you modified some references in the article arsenic pentoxide, see here. Citations templates like ((Greenwood&Earnshaw)) have a parameter for page numbers: so ((Greenwood&Earnshaw|pages=576-577)) gives Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 576–577. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.. ((Holleman&Wiberg)) have the same option. (page= for just on page...) Christian75 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Selenium dioxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selenite (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) 19:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, of course. Thanks for notifying us. More detailed response at WT:ELEM#Make the group 12 elements poor metals? Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Know anything about IBr₅, IFCl₂, IF₂Cl? Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only what I read. IBr₅ doesn't seem to have been characterised. However using google, IBr₅ is mentioned in 19th century text books as the constituent of Forneys iodine pentabromine test for oils where the reagent was prepared by mixing 127 grains of iodine with 400 grains of bromine i.e. stoichiometric quantities (or there abouts) of I₂ and Br₂. Hardly convincing for the presence of the compound methinks.

The two ternary interhalogens are mentioned by Greenwood and the compounds should be mentioned in the general references 65-67 he quotes for the section 17.2.3 'Interhalogen compounds' found on p 824, see [5] I don't have access to these reviews without looking in the local universtity library. Cotton and Wilkinson 2^d edition 1966 confusingly says there are no ternary interhalogens. Axiosaurus (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow...thanks for that link! :-) Double sharp (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that topic of binary transition-metal hydrides is heating up again. Some time ago I put together a list of pages for the first row compounds, maybe it'll be of some use to you User:Project_Osprey/sandbox2. To be honest, I'd of thought that the the only important one would be NiH_x as it might correspond to Raney nickel. Project Osprey (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gallane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alane (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) 11:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Axiosaurus, have seen your interesting posts (to DiPiep, in the PT article, and to me) and will respond as soon as I can, in between real-life obligations. Sandbh (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day Axiosaurus

After considering your concerns about Al as a poor metal, and doing some more research. I've concluded that Al is a better categorised as a 'pre-transition metal,' along with Be, Mg, the alkali metals, and the rest of the alkaline earth metals. 'Poor metals' may instead then become 'post-transition metals' i.e. the metallic elements in group 12 onwards. I understand you don't think that much of our periodic table categories. That aside, I'd be interested to hear your views on (1) Al as a pre-transition metal; and (2) 'post-transition metals' rather than 'poor metals.'

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for helping with a delicate situation. Lacking your patience, I just hope that you can keep up with the occasional frantic rate of editing on topics he barely understands. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gallane may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• base, it converts to a metal tetrahydroxygallanuide (the anion Ga(OH)₄)^–) and [[hydrogen]] gas.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coordination complex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laporte (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) 08:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Should our 18-column periodic table show lutetium and lawrencium under scandium and yttrium, instead of all the lanthanides and actinides?
• Should scandium, yttrium and the lanthanides together be coloured as rare earth metals?
• Should zinc, cadmium and mercury be taken out of the transition metals element category and placed as poor metals?

As a member of WikiProject Elements, you are invited to comment and vote here. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#element infobox and comment if you wish.Petergans (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I answered on the bismuth talk page.--Stone (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Axiosaurus. You have new messages at Ethically Yours's talk page.
Message added 12:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Ethically ^(Yours) 12:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Binary compounds of hydrogen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury hydride (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) 08:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lone pair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dipole moment (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) 08:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to write a definition for the article in plain English. It is clumsy and unencyclopedic to quote two very technical definitions like that for the lead. I prefer the previous lead, but I'm not an expert. Bhny (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Axiosaurus. Given your great review on chalcogen, could you give some comments on alkali metal? Any amount will be useful. Thanks in advance, Double sharp (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How's the chemistry coverage on thorium? Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Just off on holiday, I will take a look when I get back.Axiosaurus (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool: will await your return. This is one of the more important actinides and hence I'm more concerned about it than some of the other actinide articles I rewrote. Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Divalent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Element and Mercury. 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) 09:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if you can get these things, but the two volumes on basic S chem are on-line as "e-books". Edited by Ralf Steudel (who reported most of the new allotropes and many other things). Volume 2 has a review of polysulfanes the lower S-oxides (where I got my content for edits this AM), and polysulfides (there is also a review in Angew 1982). Volume I has the Sx rings and the S-cations, although I think that Greenwood and Earnshaw cover that well. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re current draft in sandbox: I can see that you are doing much work. After the sentence Whereas in a molecule or polyatomic ion the bonded atoms can be counted, in the solid state it is not always clear which of the neighboring atoms should be included, I would add that the simplest choice is to include only nearest neighbours. We could say that this choice is often made in elementary discussions of simple structures with all first neighbors at an equal distance. Then we could add that second neighbours are sometimes (or by some authors) added when they are not too much further (ex. LiI), and specify the C.N. obtained by both methods. Finally we could explain that in a case like gallium, the nearest-neighbour method gives nonsense (C.N. = 1), so that the second method is really necessary. In my teaching experience, suitably explained examples help a lot. Dirac66 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you happy with the changes made to Binary compounds of hydrogen between 24 June 2014 and 5 December 2014? Biscuittin (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zinc phosphides seems like your cup of tea. I heard that there are two stoichiometries (maybe even more). So if you get the time or inclination, you might check this article. Also it would be nice to describe the connectivity - Zn is three coordinate? --Smokefoot (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Axiosaurus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charge-shift bond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exclusion principle. 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) 08:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Excellence in editing chemical articles.Smokefoot (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a new article Sigma-pi model to cover an area I thought Wikipedia did not sufficiently expound on. It's effectively an extension of the available content on bent bonds to include lone pairs as well, and explains what was missing on localized molecular orbitals on mixing sigma and pi symmetry orbitals. Could you take a look? Thank you.--Officer781 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you check your edit from last November on boric acid? A numbered editor today changed strong acid to strong base, which was reverted 4 minutes later as uncited and unexplained. However it seems to me that the numbered editor is correct here: if H₃BO₃ reacts as an -OH donor with the strong acid H₂SO₄, then H₃BO₃ would be a base in this reaction. However I don't have the source cited (Greenwood and Earnshaw) so I hesitate to change it myself without consulting you as the author of the passage. Dirac66 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that you have been off Wikipedia for a month, so I have gone ahead and changed to base with a brief explanation in the edit summary. When you return, take a look and I hope you agree with my edit. Dirac66 (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you visit Talk:Charge-shift bond#Electron-density contradiction for Mg–Mg example to help explain something you wrote in that article? DMacks (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!