User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2021

Possible copyright issue with an Elsevier book

Hi, you as a chemist might be able to help me with this. I was reading Wiki articles about the chlorides of molybdenum and the came across this book. When I read what it had to say about this topic, the text seemed to be oddly familiar. And it so happens that at least stuff about molybdenum(II) chloride, and molybdenum(III) chloride in the book is either direct copy from Wikipedia word to word or with slight tweaks. The copied version are this and this and the offending pages of the book is 530 (Google Books link). There might be even more directly copied things in this book, I haven't checked. Should the pubisher be contacted? --Nitraus (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. You are correct, the MoCl2 section is pretty serious plagiarism. Also parts of Nb chemistry are also copied. I emailed the lead author and to Elsevier. My guess is that nothing will come of this incident, i.e. Elsevier will ignore me. The good news is that Wikipedia is so reliable that these three supposedly distinguished scholars decided to copy us!--Smokefoot (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is free to use for any purpose, even commercial, with attribution. Hope a lot of students read the attribution and laugh. How embarrassing for those academics. In fact, Elsevier will blush when they find out (hope they gave attribution). Imagine having to recall hundreds of books. (Which, 2021 being in the future, have not yet been sold.)--Quisqualis (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 536–537 about Ru halides (Google books p. 536, p. 537) contain text copied from ruthenium pentafluoride, ruthenium hexafluoride and ruthenium(III) chloride, with minor alterations. Section about uses of Pd in jewelry (p. 550) is taken almost directly from our palladium#Jewelry, our "citation needed" tags have just been deleted. It is easy to find more examples, most of the book has perhaps been plagiarized from Wikipedia? jni^{(talk)(delete)} 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The extent of the plagiarism is shocking. When I wrote to the lead author with excerpts from the book highlighting plagiarism, he responded "We have used many different resources to write our book including the chemistry as reflected in the extensive References and Futher reading lists at the end of the chapter. Adj. Prof. Theo Kloprogge" The references do not mention Wikipedia. You are encouraged to contact Elsevier. https://service.elsevier.com/app/contact/supporthub/elsevier/. I would be curious if you can get any comment from the authors. The plagiarism has the potential to be a landmark case.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An important part of the process is to find the WP editors who wrote the text on-wiki. They are the ones who have standing to file an actual copyright complaint. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good point: individual editors would need to be identified and express ownership... if we get that far. This episode seems relevant. Maybe Elsevier will just stop selling the book, which is my preference. The predicament seems like something that a newspaper would find interesting - big shot scholars with major publisher produce a glossy tome, which turns out to be ... . Also the book is entitled "first edition". The second edition will require Wikipedia to up our game.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From The Signpost - if you want to write an article for The Signpost please go ahead. This type of thing has been done before, see e.g. Doc James article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-25/Op-ed about Oxford Univeresity Press. The comments are also informative. You'll find that it is almost impossible to get the licensed enforced, but if you document the plagiarism thoroughly, and eliminate things like - both Wikipedia and Elsevier paraphrased from the same source, then you can certainly make a ruckus. For example - and this may be overkill -you could report the case to the author's university research ethics committee *and* the student newspaper if the university has one. Let me know if you want to pursue this. email is best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhenium(VII) oxide geometry

Hi Smokefoot,

Continuing regarding one of our problematic editors, does monomeric Re₂O₇ have linear Re–O–Re geometry? The article says it "closely resembles manganese heptoxide", and manganese heptoxide is citedly bent. But the Mn article says the Tc analog is linear and that the Mn analog resembles Tc. I don't have access to the Wells Structural Inorganic Chemistry ref. Clearly File:Rhenium(VII)-oxide-from-xtal-3D-SF.png is falsely named, since the crystal state is polymeric, with bent M–O–M (doi:10.1021/ic50073a006). I'm trying to decide if that image should be renamed ("gas-phase monomer"?) vs deleted outright ("chemical nonsense"). DMacks (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I dont have Wells with me ,but these molecular oxides appear to have received a lot of attention in recent years, so that book is not so relevant.

Tc2O7 has a linear M-O-M, centrosymmetric as a solid. doi 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b01683. These authors say that it is known to bee bent in gas phase
Mn2O7 has Mn-O-Mn of 120.7 in solid state (Krebs et al.)
Re2O7 is bent in gas phase according to IR. According to doi 10.1021/ic950675g, "The Raman and infrared spectra of gas phase Re2O7 are reported. The experimental vibrational spectra of molecular Tc2O7 and Re2O7 are compared with calculated spectra. The results of these studies agree with a nonlinear M−O−M bridge for Tc2O7 and Re2O7". But they dont give a bend angle. I hope this info helps.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big help. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mix-up at AIV

Hi. Could you take a look at this diff from WP:AIV between an edit in which Horse Eye's Back added a comment and an edit in which you responded? These edits were made 15 hours apart, which means you added your response to a version of the page that was 15 hours old, obliterating all the outstanding reports that were on the page immediately before your edit (one of which was mine), and restoring all the reports that had been there at the time of HEB's comment and had since then been processed and removed. Largoplazo (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for obliterating. Apparently my addition, well intentioned as it was, was inept and caused extra work for you. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi! I reported an IP User. You deleted my report and I don't really understand why. You only wrote "wasted effort". Whad do you mean by this? The user I reported has vandalised the article again. Dante4786 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfur trioxide

I see you're doing some improvements at Sulfur trioxide. I've never worked with the stuff personally but I've know people who have and I dimly remember them having some mad stories about it. The melting point of the polymeric alpha form is higher than the boiling point of the molten monomer - so heating results in something like explosive sublimation. I seem to recall that the are significant enthalpy changes between the various polymorphs, which makes this extra exciting. You can't buy it from Sigma or any other reputable supplier, probably for these reasons. --Project Osprey (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Project Osprey:. Although a sulfur guy, I have never worked with SO3. I have a sample of the py adduct, which seems fairly benign. Your comments about hazards of handling the compound align with my expectations - it is nasty stuff that industrial labs are suited to handle vs the cowboy approach employed in academia. The properties of its various forms merit description. Any further guidance you might have would be most welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will have to wait till the working week but I'd have a look. Many chemists enjoy swapping stories of ferocious materials, so I expect there'll be a good summery somewhere.--Project Osprey (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually proving hard to find good references, possibly because academic labs can't buy it very easily. I don't have access to this review but I think it might hold some answers doi:10.1021/cr60220a003. I've found mention of liquid γ-SO₃ being stabilised by trace levels of boron trioxide which prevent it from polymerising - it was at one point marketed under the trade-name of Sulfan but it doesn't seem to be available any more.doi:10.1021/ie50579a019 --Project Osprey (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hydrocyanation of unsaturated carbonyl compounds into Hydrocyanation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out: I move a lot of content. A lot. And in so doing, I edit the content either as part of the moving/pasting or subsequently. I typically note the source page. Here are two relevant notes from the hydrocyanation reshuffle:

"Merge proposal[edit source]

Support the 2020 merge proposal to merge Hydrocyanation of unsaturated carbonyl compounds here; best discussed in the context of the broader topic, and will significantly improve this page. Klbrain (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I moved it, but tossed a lot of super specialized or inappropriate (procedures and advice) content. It was written by an eager grad student who tended to be repetitive.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)"

"16:46, 21 February 2021 diff hist +7,019‎ Hydrocyanation ‎ →‎History: start transferring content"

But I will re-read your recommendations and strive to adhere to those guidelines.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2-Fluoroethanol

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are violating the three-revert rule!!! Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nschndr (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appearsss that you are doing a homework assignment without any guidance. Its not your fault, but your teacher's. The article will be rewritten in concise format sooner or later. Tell your teacher or your parents to step in if you feel that you are being mistreated. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I am as much entitled as you to write a Wikipedia page, just because you have more experience, does not mean that you are better than I am. If you have any problems with my writing style, all you need to do is comment on them. Instead, you just deleted large parts of my page. I spend hours on making the page and you just deleted it, because? It is not according to your writing style? Talk to me, comment on specific details, but do not just remove thousands of words. Not only is it arrogant to think that your preferences are the only way to write a Wikipedia page, you did not even give me the chance to improve it myself so I could learn from your writing experience. And most important of all, you violated the three-revert rule several times. You are not allowed to delete more than three parts of a page!!! I could file a report and get you blocked from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nschndr (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Potassium arsenate" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Potassium arsenate. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 24#Potassium arsenate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Beland (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vit B5

What did you not like about the sentence "The vitamin circulates in plasma as such; the conversion to CoA takes place after it is taken up by cells."? David notMD (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The vitamin circulates in plasma as such"

Response: That's what vitamins do.

"The conversion to CoA takes place after it is taken up by cells"

Response: What alternative is there for the prosthetic group to be attached to the cofactor?

Thanks for checking. It is gratifying that someone notices and reassuring that others are monitoring. cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the seven vitamin articles I have raised to GA. Trying hard not to act as if I 'own' them. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: David, I can be hyperactive, very imperfect editor, so you are welcome to revert or modify my edits. I will not be offended (not that it matters). Although Wiki expects AGF, I rely on AGIBEF (assume good intentions but expect flaws). --Smokefoot (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding page number

Hello . Please consider adding page numbers when using {{Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}}, {{March6th}} and other citation templates - just add page= or pages=. Its so difficult to find the numbers later. Christian75 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you for the advice. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorus-31 nuclear magnetic resonance

I reverted your contribs because of section contents (previous is more about how it works and following one about chemistry or like). I put image at the beginning of the article because it is the only image in the article and we don't know where it belongs. --5.43.73.49 (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Its a spectrum submitted by me, BTW. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gallium(III) sulfate

I have a question why you said there was no evidence. There was plenty of references and there were chemical companies offering it. Isn't this evidence. There is even a document from the University of Michigan. Thank you. Keresluna (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I even found an article describing a successful preparation of Gallium(III) sulfate. Hoping to hear back. Keresluna (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna: If you want a good source on inorganic compounds, look for a published crystal structure. If you cannot find a crystal structure, then stay away from a compound because you might not have enough experience to know what is real and what is not real. Companies will say many things, but their websites are not reliable sources. Patents also can be very unreliable. So be careful and skeptical. Titanium(IV) acetate sounds good, but no one has ever made it. Ditto for gallium sulfate as far as I can see.

You seeem to be looking for compounds that have not been described in Wikipedia, but doing that takes serious experience.

If you have some questions, feel free to ask me or other regular editors in Chemistry-Wiki for help. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though this compound looks good for my experience. Another question: if a source shows a X-ray diffraction pattern is it reliable? Keresluna (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray crystal structure. Most things, pure, mixtures, garbage, etc - give a pattern, but it is the single crystal X-ray crystallography analysis that leads to a 3-dimensional structure.

I searched Chem Abstracts for Ga2(SO4)3: almost nothing. At that stage I realized that you are guessing compounds that should exist based on oxidation states. That approach is admirable and leads to useful thinking, but that approach is also tricky. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another red flag: just Google "gallium sulfate". What do you see? Journal articles? No. Textbook sections? No. Companies trying to sell you stuff? Yes. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I really appreciate it. I am very sorry if I am just making a mess. Thank you again! Keresluna (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe you can learn something. For example titanium tetraacetate is likely to eliminate acetic anhydride and various Ti oxo acetate clusters.

My advice - get a great textbook, and use that as a tool to contribute to Wiki-Chem. My favorite is "Chemistry of the Elements" by Greenwood and Earnshaw. Its about 25 years old, but still very useful. The advantage of using a big, famous textbook is that your contributions are more likely to be notable. Notability is a big, big problem for new editors. Not only is gallium sulfate not real, it is not really notable.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Compounds of aluminium to Aluminum compounds help

I am trying to move the page Compounds of aluminium to Aluminum compounds because the result of Requested move 5 May 2021 was move. All of the other links are solved but I need help on the aluminum one. Thank you. Keresluna (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine cycle

This page is fairly new page and I thought it might interest you, as you've had a few battles over fluoride pages in the past. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I missed it. I am semi-vigilant about some forms of antifluoridation, but this article seems sane. There are some folk that associate fluoridation with Nazis, mind control, and all sorts of nutty ideas or innuendos. BTW, a belated thank you for revising polyurethane. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting things like that to mere facts can be difficult. Polyurethane is still far from resolved, but some sections are a real undertaking and its rare that I have a free day to dedicate to them. Hopefully I'll get there eventually. --Project Osprey (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2-Ethylhexanoic acid

I wanted to know, if possible, in detail, why the method of obtaining the acid was considered wrong, saying that butyraldehyde is used, being the butyraldehyde is the first product of the aldol condensation of ethanol, subsequent hydrogenation. Basquyati (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to check. The edits can seem brutal or dismissive because some editors like me are covering a lot of articles and we dont explain things well. Butyraldehyde is produced by hydroformylation on scale. It is not made from acetaldehyde. That reaction is reasonable, but it is "insignificant" in a commercial sense. I dont know why that is the case. Hydroformylation is highly efficient is presumably part of the reason. My general feeling is that (see [[Guerbet reaction| (see Guerbet chem looks good on paper but is messy. A very good review is doi=10.1002/14356007.a10_137. Feel free to ask further. Another issue with your edit, as I recall, was that it is not backed by refs. With best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)--Smokefoot (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroquinone and your revert.

Hi,

Please join the discussion I started.

PS. According to this source the "come off it" is an informal phrasal verb, "used to disagree with somebody rudely". Was it your intention? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your only argument was "come off it", and you ignored my invitation to join the discussion, so I restored my version. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for Shoe polish

I have nominated Shoe polish for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A spooky barnstar for you!

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I don't know what sixth sense or magical energy you were tapping into, but out of everyone here you're the only one able to state truthfully that you opposed the administratorship of an Icewhiz sock. Surreal hardly contains it. Sending love, fellow human. Folly Mox (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the star. It's a little spooky. Actually, I didnt know that the editor in question was a sockpuppet, but I did catch some flak for commenting that the candidate was not a very assiduous content creator. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		"In recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service." ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's good to be alone and unafraid. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the recognition and for taking time to contact me.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"BaMnO3" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BaMnO3. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 4#BaMnO3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about TACH ligand

Hi Smokefoot,

While looking at hexahydro-1,3,5-triazine, which is target of the TACH redirect, I see TACH defined as a triazacyclohexane structure (nitrogen instead of carbon as part of the ring). But that article links to cis,cis-1,3,5-triaminocyclohexane, which identifies itself as TACH. In that case, it's triaminocyclohexane structure (nitrogen substituents attached to the ring). I don't know either of these ligands myself. Is there really a widespread ambiguous usage in the literature? If so, we should try to note in those two articles whatever the situation is, and adjust the redirect to point to a disambiguation page if necessary. DMacks (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Good eye. Probably like you, by Googling, I found the acronym applied to both the trazacyclohexane:

Inorg Chem. 2010 Feb 15;49(4):1283-5. doi: 10.1021/ic902114p. "Triazacyclohexane (tach) complexes of high-valent rhenium: syntheses of [(R(3)tach)ReO(3)](+) (R = -CH(3), -CH(2)C(6)H(5)) and its substitution reactions")

and the cis,cis-1,3,5-triaminocyclohexane:

Inorg Chem. 2013 Apr 15;52(8):4517-27. doi: 10.1021/ic302819j. "cis-1,3,5-Triaminocyclohexane as a facially capping ligand for ruthenium(II)" PMID: 23517123 DOI: 10.1021/ic302819j.

So you're right and I guess we modify the tach to be a mini disambiguation page. We have a slightly related issue with triphos, which should probably be split and handled similarly.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonyl C-O distance

Hi Smokefoot,

Hope you're well!

I saw this edit you made to Carbonyl_group#Structure, saying the C=O distance in COCl₂ is 1.66 Å. Are you sure that's right? Phosgene#Structure_and_basic_properties says 1.18 Å, while Greenwood & Earnshaw give it as 1.166 Å, i.e. 1.17 Å. They also provide a comparison with carbonyl fluoride (1.174 Å) and carbonyl bromide (1.13 Å).

Ben (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"MoS4" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MoS4 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 27#MoS4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI in edits about bioenergetics

I want to ask your advice about a recent edit by Klaus Schmidt-Rohr here on Fatty acid, and multiple edits by the same person on related pages such as Fatty acid metabolism, Mitochondrion and Cellular respiration that refer many times to the same self-citation. They seem to be clear cases of ~~WP:SELF~~WP:SELFCITE and reliance on primary research, and I could be bold and simply revert on that basis, warn the editor as you have done previously on their talk page, and invite discussion on the Fatty acid talk page. To make things more complicated, these edits also appear dubious to me, or at least they provide a boldly non-mainstream description of bioenergetics, as they claim "Fundamental Corrections" to long-held understanding. This "correction" appears oversimplified: it seems to ignore the high H content in alkane chains of fatty acids as being important to the high energy/mass ratio they provide through oxidation. But I feel that I'm too much of a non-chemist and WP newbie to be so bold as to revert and discuss the technical and editorial aspects in detail. I'd be glad of you or DMacks or other experienced editors would evaluate and address these edits as you think appropriate, or offer your advice on how to proceed. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References