User talk:Jcwf

Hi Jcwf,

I'm afraid I don't really understand the resonance structure of CO. I drew my picture from what I saw in a text book, however it was a very old text book, (80s). Are you saying that the other two structures should be different? Or just that they are not significant enough? I would be happy to redraw the diagram if you could show me other structures. If you think the other two are not significant enough then either remove it yourself or start a section on the CO talk page. Although I think even if they are very unstable and have a low chance of occurring practically but are still theoretically present then it is an interesting diagram, but maybe the explanation about them should be changed. -- Borb (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Borb,

A text book huh? Ouch..

The problem becomes visible if you add the remaining lone pairs. If you do the Lewis calculation you get:

ER (electrons required for octet rule)= 2*8 =16

VE (valence electrons available) = 4 (C) +6 (O) = 10, so total number of pairs = 10/2=5

The whole point of Lewis structures is to make up the difference by sharing electron pairs:

SE (shared electrons) =ER-VE= 16-10 = 6, so total shared pairs = 6/2 = 3

This means the number of lone pairs (LP) should be 5-3= 2

The only way you can do this is |C≡O|, because you need three bonds.

Yes you can write a structure like C=O but that would leave 3 lone pairs like |C=O>. If you now count the electrons surrounding C, there are only 6, not a full octet. The third 'resonance' is worse. It leaves C with only 4 electrons...

True resonance structures involve equivalent structures that each fulfill the octet rule. There is only one of those in this case.

(Of course, the whole Lewis story is primitive bunk compared to MO theory but that is a different matter) Jcwf (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you really got me going on this. (Reason being that I teach CH101...) I went to the old books to see how people dealt with this story before MO theory. Moeller^[1] says

A triple bond in [..CO..] was first suggested by Langmuir [..1919..] as more compatible with the properties [..] than a double bond. It is more probable however that the actual structure is a resonance hybrid involving the three structures [..your pic.. reference Linus Pauling (!!) The nature of the chemical Bond 1940..] ..

Although these structures are markedly different they are rendered about equally important because of the opposing effects of number of covalent bonds and charge separation.

...

The bond distance of 1.13A [..] indicates only that the triple bond arrangement is not incompatible [..lol..]

Linus, Linus... Tsk,tsk... The later application of MO theory has shown nothing but a triple bond and at least in this version of Pauling's story there is nothing about octet rules being violated....

What it all really shows is that Lewis theory was woefully inadequate to describe even simple molecules like CO anno 1940.

Unfortunately educationally Lewis and VSEPR are there to stay, simply because you can teach a freshman how to push a few electrons around but not how to do quantum mechanical calculation on his calculator.

That begs the question what should wiki do?

I think the best thing is to hang out the dirty laundry. And so your pic may well be useful, although it would be more useful if the lone pairs would be added. Then we could say that CO has baffled people for a long time, Langmuir proposed the triple bond structure and that it obeys octet but has an idiotic formal charge, that |C=O> looks more reasonable from a charge point of view but is not octet and that all these problems can only be resolved with MO theory. When written that way the story may actually help freshmen understand that Lewis and VSEPR are not the 'truth' but a quick and dirty model only. Unfortunately wiki often creates the opposite impression

Jcwf (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So I added the lone pairs to the png version. I have no clue about how to do svg.

I also made a MO diagram for comparison, although it is not quite accurate: in CO the sigma 2p is actually higher in energy than the pi's

Jcwf (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jcwf (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made an SVG version of the resonance structures with lone pairs. The database on commons is locked at the moment so I'll upload it later. Is it ok to use dots for the lone pairs instead of lines?

I agree I think the best thing is to say that CO has been confusing and MO theory has only recently shown the real structure (I assume it's quite recent). The resonance structures were what was thought, and taught, for a long time and proposed by Paulin etc. Wikipedia should definitely show what is correct (and can be cited of course) not what is taught in schools, but I think it is interesting to show what is taught in schools and why it is not quite right. -- Borb (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded now. -- Borb (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I can redraw the MO diagram as SVG at some point, or you can try it yourself by downloading Inkscape from http://www.inkscape.org/ It's a really good program and produces compliant SVGs great for using on Wikipedia. It isn't great at drawing chemical symbols though, you have to kind of make them up. I don't know any chemical drawing app that will produce SVG. -- Borb (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that your comment on my talk page is in reference to Solar Energy Generating Systems. I share your disgust with the placement of a cleanup template on that article, as it detracted from the article for no good reason. However, the 3 tiny images in that gallery were not very satisfying, and after seeing that an extensive gallery of images (including those images and more) exists at Commons and is prominently linked in the article, I saw no particular purpose in keeping the miniature gallery.
This is not a matter of hiding the images, but rather of removing an article element that might prevent readers from finding a much better collection of images.--Orlady (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, please assume good faith. I am no fan of including collections of itty-bitty images in articles. In this case, Wikipedia Commons offered a much better image gallery than the article had. I'm pleased to see that you have revised the article to make the images into illustrations for the article, although it's not entirely clear to me how they illustrate points made in the text. (When images are used in an encyclopedia, they should be used to convey information and support content, not merely serve as eye candy.) Ideally, the article would be expanded... --Orlady (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Political positions of Barack Obama appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite wrong about my views, and I'll thank you not to leave personal attacks on my talk page. My motivation is entirely about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you are way out of line. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't read well. Sorry, my mistake. I restored your edit. Iblardi (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the general term for nouns coined from verbs in English is verbal noun. Traditional grammar speaks of various types derived from Latin or Greek, like gerunds, gerundives, and infinitives. None of them are broken down into thematic versus athematic groups as far as I know; then again Latin hardly has athematic verbs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jcwf. Commons rules are very strict, and I am afraid the other coin images do not conform easily. You can however use the attached image, which I took myself, and is therefore available. I have just transfered it to Commons. Cheers Phg (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you draw dichlorine heptoxide, Cl₂O₇, with all atoms written with simple octets, as suggested in your recent edit?

Like this?

Ben (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know Xhosa?

If so, would you mind creating the Xhosa article for xh:South African Airways?

Also it would be nice to have a Xhosa translation for the description of this image: File:SAA-Airways Park-002.jpg

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but my Xhosa is very limited and gradually fading as I have not been in South Africa for a decade now. Jcwf (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know any Wikipedians who could further assist with the requests? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I have been trying to get amaXhosa to come forth and write their intricate language for years, but to no avail. So i wish you a lot of luck, You'll need it. Jcwf (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jcwf, and thanks for your message!

I am going to ignore your comments on my prejudices and censorship, and rather stick to the subject at hand. You wrote on my talk page: "There are numerous South African sources from across the political spectrum, including e.g. Cosatu, that speak of racism".

I fully agree that this debate is about race and racism. When I changed the section heading from 'racial conflict' to 'public spat with Jimmy Manyi', this was an attempt at clarity. Essentially, I would agrue that 'racial conflict' connotes violence between different ethnic groups, which is slightly misleading. The debate is heated, but it is still a political debate within a democratic setting. Which is why I thought 'Public spat with Jimmy Manyi' would be more accurate. 'Public spat with Jimmy Manyi over race' or something to that effect would have been even better, except it is a bit too laborious for a headline. Perhaps I should have made my reasons clearer in the edit summary.

I don't know if you noticed, but I did write a bit on the discussion page. To recap: I feel the whole Manyi incident is definitely notable, but should perhaps be elaborated upon elsewhere on Wikipedia, rather than in the Trevor Manuel article. But please, have a look at what I wrote and give feedback! Cheers KongOlavKonfekt (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback! You are perfectly right in that racism is racism, and a serious problem whether accompanied by overt violence or not. What I am getting at is that the headline 'racial conflict', at least at a glance, suggests that Manuel and Manyi's clash is primordial; as if it is determined by their supposedly belonging to different racial groups. KongOlavKonfekt (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello, Jcwf. You have new messages at Vsmith's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It seems to me that you're confusing the Hermann–Mauguin notation and the space group notation. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Hello, Jcwf. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 21:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jcwf. I just wanted to let you know that in order to retitle a page, content shouldn't simply be copied from one title to the other as you did with ionic bond/ionic bonding. This causes a break in the edit history of the article content. I have moved and combined the histories of the two titles, so nothing else needs to be done now, but for the future, Help:How to move a page gives details on the proper method. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your recent work on non-stoichiometry. Here are some guidelines to consider WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTMANUAL. Most content-adding editors struggle with these guidelines, and I confess to no great insights other than your contribution might be crossing the line on them. In any case, good luck and happy editing. We always need editors in the Chemistry project. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine Smokefoot. Please delete my terrible attempt to clarify a topic that as it stands now it is mostly a reflection of the bias of people who have been taught that everything is stoichiometric, even though it is not. Its quality is atrocious. But you can pride yourself in having scared off another editor of the Chemistry project. I'll go and write a better story in Afrikaans. Jcwf (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What?--Smokefoot (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South African energy crisis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scientific technique is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific technique until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)