For older material, see

• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch1
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch3
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2009
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2010
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2011
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2012
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2013
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2014
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2015
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2016
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2017
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2018
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2019
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2020
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2021
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2022
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2023
• User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2024

Hi, there is a reference missing to the scheme under the second paragraph in this section. This is a reference I am very inclined to find as it heavily relates to my current research. Please update if you still have the article.

Hi, in this edit Special:Diff/1251953510 you have added <ref name="textbook"/> but the textbook reference has not been defined in the article. --CiaPan (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with {{cn}}: special:diff/1268536652. --CiaPan (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent contributions to the AFD for the List of inorganic reactions. I hope my reply to you did not throw you for a curve, as you seem to have removed your (thoughtful!) !vote and comment since. Please note that you are allowed to change your mind and add a new !vote, under the condition that you strike out your old one. (see WP:AFDFORMAT) I would hope to see you restore your recent !vote as I do think you contributed valuable information to the discussion :)

Additionally, entirely removing comments that have in the meantime received replies instead of striking them through (see WP:REDACT) can leave subsequent replies without context, such as has happened with my reply to your commment. Please try to avoid doing so. Cheers! YuniToumei (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have just striked it out. I just was quickly reacting to yet another editor saying that I was voting twice. Apologies. Let me see if I can fix my edits. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't previously familiar with Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Thank you for introducing me to it. It's fascinating. John (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is scary good. Sometimes I worry that I am over-reliant on Ullmann's, or that I trust it too much. A similar book series is the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia, which tends to be slightly more textbook-ish.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Hydrogen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert this edit? It was a basic copyedit yes, but I felt it was necessary and makes the article clearer. Your revert does not WP:AGF:

• Per WP:DONTREVERT: Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). Unless you can prove to me the reverted edit must actually make the article worse?
• Per WP:PARTR: You could also discuss an edit directly with the editor who made it, on that editor's talk page, and request that the editor modify their own work. Or convince you that it's best as it stands.
• A message on my talk page would have been nice before reverting and explaining your concern.

I will reimplement the edit soon if you cannot provide a valid reason other than the one in your edit summary “nothing is added”—not sufficient per above. waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Waddie96:The wording is incorrect. Ac groups are not added. We get this kind of well-intentioned mistakes all the time, no problem. Chemistry is complicated.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot Then doing a partial revert is preferred per policy due to reasons stated above and in the policy. Reverts are just destructive. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Waddie96: misinformation is "just destructive", probably moreso.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but your edit summary did not reflect that… waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did a small copy edit at Lauric acid § Production and reactions, including the molecular formula. I think the beginning was just accidentally duplicated, but pinging in case I've messed something up! Tule-hog (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Have you seen the German Artikel to this pigment. Our "colour specialist" NadirSH has added reaction schemes and such to the article. Perhaps there is something interesting to add to the EN article as well - If you want to have a look... Calle Cool (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tip. Thank you very much. That editor is following the lead from the english Wiki (i.e. me). The structure shown in the German ChemBox is incorrect, at least for chemistry nerds. Maybe no one cares and maybe it doesnt matter. I love analyzing the preps of these pigments, but have decided that most readers are likely to be artists or tox/environmental folk. So I am laying off some of the chem. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Perhaps I have somthing intersting for you. I thin the EN-Artikel from Aloxiprin is mixed up with Hypyrin/Aspirin aluminum.

As far as I can tell, you have all the data for Aspirin aluminum in the infobox (C₁₈H₁₅AlO₉; Molar 402,053; Q1326389; CAS 23413-80-1; Chemspider 11182224; Pubchem 3032790; Echa-Infocard 100.041.481 , but the text is aimed at Aloyiprin (C₉H₈Al₂O₇; Molar 281,9; d:Q27888708; CAS 9014-67-9, Chemspider 32698107; Pubchem 71586929; Druckbank DB13509; wikipedia DE). I think you would probably just have to clean up the infobox and then connect the EN article with the WD object Q27888708. Or how do you see it?

For Explaining - I have done this Change after I have realized that 99% from the box is From CAS 23413-80-1. Calle Cool (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or is al right and the Name Aloxiprin is worong and have to move to Aspirin aluminum?--Calle Cool (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Calle Cool:. I could not find much info on these chemicals. I mainly focus on facts and sourcing of well established chemicals, but those two are pretty obscure by my standards. Good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by too specialised there? I haven't heard of a commercial application of it yet, but it seems to be a common polymerisation technique in research and development, and I think that out of the polymers produced electrochemically polyaniline might be the most common one. Could maybe cut out the application info, but I think this should be noted. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MasterTriangle12: Hi, thanks for the note and apologies if my edit seems unwelcome.

Polyaniline is the subject of >49,800 reports and patents. Under such circumstances, it seems that Wiki article should follow WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY. 65 reviews (i.e. WP:SECONDARY) have appeared since January 2024.

The area is mature, replete with established applications in microelectronics. So, I hope that this description partially justifies my action about your well-intentioned edit.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate a desire to keep pages concise, but I think you may have mistaken this for some niche application that rarely pops up in primary research? I checked around and while uncommon outside of research this synthesis method is often featured in reviews of PANI production. And I would disagree that the area is mature, some applications certainly, but not in general. I originally came to add this because in-situ electrochemical polymerisation as an electrode surface improvement kept coming up without fanfare in otherwise unrelated electrochem papers I was reading, as though it is considered a relatively common technique. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to keep it concise. My concern is WP:UNDUE - overemphasis on themes that might be narrow. What about the other 48000+ references? Also your refs, at least the ones I checked, are not highly cited. But the not that big a deal to me. It is surprising to me when low-citation primary references in specialized journals are considered key. And most, especially academics, associated with publications are convinced that they have special info. But go for it.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good, it is important to cut the chaff. I chopped off the listed applications that probably shouldn't be in the synthesis section anyway, and used more general secondary references. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I know you sometimes request images for deletion on Commons (I have no idea how to do it). Maybe you can help. This image File:Barium_azide,_Ba(N3)2.png is a smaller version of File:Bariumsulfatpulver.png BaSO₄. The latter is the older image. I saw it because I was reverted [1]. Christian75 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I have struggled deleting things on commons also.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That incorrect image was used in a bunch of other wikipedias' articles. I replaced them all and tagged the image for deletion (c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barium azide, Ba(N3)2.png) with link back to this discussion. That same uploader has several other dubiously sourced images (claimed own but taken from somewhere else) that I tagged for license fail. And several others that are random powders with claimed chemical identities (no idea if they are actually their own photo and if they are actually the correct chemical). c:COM:PCP might mean we should delete those for that former reason. See c:Special:ListFiles/И.С._Непоклонов for them all. DMacks (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, there's been a collision in the North Sea involving a ship carrying sodium cyanide. I expect the page to see increased traffic for a couple of days, so I added some extra information late last night. I know it to be correct but I lack references - Ullmann's seems to underpin our existing pages on adiponitrile and methyl methacrylate, but I can't access it to check it myself. Assuming the facts line-up could you do me a favor and stick in a couple of references? Project Osprey (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I dont think that cyanide is used in adiponitrile or acrylates. Adiponitrile is usually made from HCN + butadiene and acrylonitrile via ammoxidation. Rechecking Ullmann's "About 70 % of world cyanide production is used in the gold mining industry." #2 is chemicals: RX + NaCN, cyanogen chloride]] and its trimer, cyanogen. #3 is electroplating (Pt, Au, Ag, Cd) or hardening of steels.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Methyl methacrylate appears to be made from cyanide. I'm assuming that in a practical sense no one is transporting hydrogen cyanide to the production site and it's being made from the salt instead.... or at least I dearly hope that's how it works. The hardening of steels is exciting - if you can imagine dipping components into what looks like a pool of lava, but its worse than lava because its molten cyanide salts. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. Hydrogen cyanide is indeed shipped as a mildly pressurised liquid in standard tank containers. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, methacrylate from acetone cyanohydrin! I need to beef up the detox section.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Naval stores. No rush!! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 06:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting on Draft:Xenocycloheptatrisulfurane.

This compound is an imaginary compound. I have assumed the formula to be . Although xenon does not directly form bonds with carbon, it can be attached to an organic ring structure through a special process.

However, you have commented on the draft that it is not suitable for Wikipedia. I would like to know why it is not suitable? Somajyoti (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, while I agree that this draft has no chance because the topic is made up and has no direct support in any literature, I did find a few mentions of very simple inorganic xenon sulfides in non-crappy journals. Lead refs:

• theoretical: doi:10.1016/j.comptc.2013.03.030
• experimental: doi:10.1016/0009-2614(86)80640-6

Just because I know you like oddball inorganic topics:) DMacks (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Given the once intense interest in xenon oxides it is inevitable that that the corresponding sulfides would have been investigated computationally. Probably the Xe-S-F system also.

Maybe my comments seemed too vehement, but if XeS_x is at the edge, and Xe-C₇H₈ is also at the edge of plausibility (all Xe-C bonds are for perfluoro's, I recall), it follows that the XeS_x-C₇H₈ system is just too speculative to be worth an article, fringe of fringe. I was wondering if the authors did not consider cycloheptatrienyl-Xe. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few refs with good experimental evidence for xenon pi-complexed to carbocylic aromatics, such as doi:10.1063/1.4754435 and doi:10.1021/jp5094004. The draft article cites doi:10.1039/c1cp21634a, which is only mass-spec evidence for highly charged structures. DMacks (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xe---C distances in phenol pi-complex are 3.8-4A's vs 2ish in for (legit) X-F bonds in xenon difluoride. So, these species are super flimsy interactions in my book. But such flimsy stuff is well out of my bailiwick, which is the realm of robust molecules and ions. I confess to being reluctant even about articles on most nonexistent compounds (I guess that is not an article, surprisingly). Still, I go back to the argument that fringe of the fringe is too weird for us, or would be if I were grand imperial article selector. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The article at hand is definitely WP:OR by the WP editor. This was just my attempt to see how far to the fringe there was any actual lit information, on a topic that is nowhere near any of my specialty. Oh, if I were a grand imperial article selector... sigh. :) DMacks (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have delete my edits on anion exchange membrane electrolysis and saying that the Ni-Fe catalysts are not widely used but a research project. But the whole anion exchange membrane electrolysis technique is just a research project. I was just saying that Ni-Fe catalysts are widely used in those researches because they considered this as a 'standard'. Could you give me more detailed reason why it is deleted? Otherwise I will re-upload it with a more accurate sentence. Qianyunbai0313 (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for the message. I think that it is very important to emphasize that that area is academic research and is not used commercially. Many readers think that when academics use the word "useful" that the term is literal. Go ahead and make your revisions. And thanks again for asking.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for you explaination. I guess I have not think carefully enough about the words I used. Qianyunbai0313 (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Transition metal amide complex, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a reference for my edit on the hazards of benzyl cyanide, and if you look at the reference, you will find that the chemical structure of "Benzeneacetonitrile" is identical to benzyl cyanide. Therefore, could you please provide a reason for your revert? Ascchrvalstr (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I didnt see any new useful content. Some commercial source that is sorta bland and a claim that it is super toxic.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that it is a commercial source does not automatically imply that it is unreliable. Also, [2] says broadly similar things about the hazards of this substance, so even if ChemicalBook is unreliable, the same content (NFPA 704, etc.) could still be added to the article. Ascchrvalstr (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I edited your user page. I hope this is OK and that it was constructive or an improvement to the page in that it helps it achieve its goals or gives you a laugh. If not then you can obviously change it back, but just to reassure you that you wouldn't need to let me know that you are reverting the edits to your page. I also made a new section.

: signed: [[User:Catcus_DeMeowwy]] (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're feeling bored, de:Chapman-Umlagerung has more information to spawn a separate Chapman rearrangement page rather than a section-redirect. DMacks (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks:. Thanks, I'll put it on a mental list. Right now, I'm trying to get some placeholders for RC(S)OR vs RC(O)SR. Gave up on RC(NR)OR (imidates).--Smokefoot (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Sitting in my todo-file from August 2024 is an item called "thionoester refs". May as well pass them along...

• native chemical ligation:
  • doi:10.1021/jacs.8b07268
• thionobenzoates as radical-precursors for carbohydrate deoxygentation:
  • Castro-Palomino, J. C.; Tsvetkov, Y. E.; Schmidt, R. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 5434.
  • Castro-Palomino, J. C.; Schmidt, R. R. Synlett 1998, 501.

DMacks (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like useful stuff. I have been avoiding the ligation business.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smokefoot; some time in September 2024, you gave me some suggestions on articles that needed to be expanded on when I was looking for something to do. I found myself getting busy with WP:AFC work shortly after that, but today I finally got around to building potassium borohydride up from the redirect that it used to be. You're right; there's a lot of citations out there! So much so that there's a lot of room to develop this page. I grabbed a few of the sources I could find for now, just to have a stub at least. It was your suggestion that inspired this, so I wanted to check in to see if there's anything you think needs to be included? Right now it's fairly general stuff. Thanks for the tip once again! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thank you for getting the article into some respectable status. As you found, it is a seriously useful topic. You are not a chemist, so let me and other chemists deal with potassium borohydride. The article would benefit from a chemist's chemistry perspective. I, on the other hand, am not very knowledgeable at WP:AFC, and it is likely that that key job needs folks like you. Thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot - stumbled across your user page a few times while recreationally editing. Your edits are high quality, your demeanor is kind and assumes good faith, and from my perspective, appear to be an absolutely premium human.

Thanks for your time and effort to make the world a smarter, slightly less awful place. Appreciate you. 😉

Testtubewaltz (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Transition metal dithiophosphate complex, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New to Talk pages (and editing) but wanted to ask why the edit to 8-mercaptoquinoline was reverted without correction to the original issue which is the appearance of the compound. I have another source (https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/v63-234) that references the anhydrous 8-mercaptoquinoline as a blue liquid with the dihydrate being a red solid. The disulfide of the thiol is a white solid (and is formed under ambient conditions) which is probably a source of discrepancy. Probably missed an intricacy on editing rules but marking it as "vandalism" makes it seem like my edit was factually incorrect and done out of malice which it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.150.59.109 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize sincerely. Apparently I totally messed up. Dont worry about any rules, focus on the facts and hopefully you will not encounter edits like mine again! Give me a few minutes to make amends. The basic situation is this: aryl thiols are almost always nearly colorless but it is conceivable that the mercaptoquinoline could exist as the thione tautomer...--Smokefoot (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings at all and no apologies necessary! It is 100% reasonable to assume that this compound *should* be a white solid based on the hydroxy analog! This compound and the lack of modern literature describing its appearance that matches with the older observations makes for an interesting (albeit very complicated to follow) story. Thanks for the help with the references! 168.150.59.109 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smokefoot,

I noticed you reverted my edits on Arsenic and Orpiment, describing them as “spam” and “spammer.”

I was surprised by this, since the addition was based on research in a leading journal, PLOS Biology: “A deep-sea hydrothermal vent worm detoxifies arsenic and sulfur by intracellular biomineralization of orpiment (As2S3).”

The finding has also been reported in Science (“Deep-sea worms fight poison with poison to survive in hydrothermal vents”) and Nature (“This deep-sea worm creates a toxic yellow pigment found in Rembrandt and Cézanne paintings”).

In particular, the paper highlights a novel fact about arsenic. To quote the authors:

“Our environmental chemistry survey showed that P. hessleri bio-accumulated and tolerated a staggeringly high level of arsenic (approximately 10,000 μg/g, whole body, fresh weight), which is about one magnitude higher than most known arsenic hyperaccumulators (such as polychaete worm Arenicola marina and brake fern Pteris vittata accumulate inorganic arsenic, and polychaete worm Tharyx marioni accumulate organic arsenic).”

Could you clarify your concern? I want to ensure that my contributions comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thanks,

LittleHow (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleHow:

Hi and thank you for contacting me. We all are trying to make Wikipedia better, but some of us differ in the pathway. Here are my responses to your message points:

I noticed you reverted my edits on Arsenic and Orpiment, describing them as “spam” and “spammer.”

I reverted 2 or your 3 nearly identical contributions. I left the main one. The PLOS article in question is about As2S3 mainly. Your edit is a fine contribution to the As2S3 article.

Repeated contributions, in my book, often constitute spam.

I was surprised by this, since the addition was based on research in a leading journal, PLOS Biology: “A deep-sea hydrothermal vent worm detoxifies arsenic and sulfur by intracellular biomineralization of orpiment (As2S3).”

• Now this comment get us to an important juncture:

193 publications describe As2S3 since 2024. How many of these do you think that we should cite? Your PLOS paper is 0.5% of that pool. Why stop there?

>7000 papers/patents etc describe As2S3 overall. Should we cite what, 10% or these? You want to cherry pick 700 papers? Or maybe only the top 1%, 70 new refs to add. Who selects the "top" 1%?

To partially address this problem, Wikipedians apply two guidelines: WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia does not try to report fast breaking results): We are an encyclopedia: we emphasize settled knowledge. And next Wikipedians apply WP:SECONDARY, we emphasize reviews (articles about articles) or better WP:TERTIARY (articles about reviews)

The finding has also been reported in Science (“Deep-sea worms fight poison with poison to survive in hydrothermal vents”) and Nature (“This deep-sea worm creates a toxic yellow pigment found in Rembrandt and Cézanne paintings”).

Hype, hype, and hype. So, when I describe sodium chloride, I should mention that it is the same material was used by Jesus when he .... You gotta see through such hype. Authors want to get published and often say outlandish things. Rembrandt, really?

In particular, the paper highlights a novel fact about arsenic.

Oh come off it! Do you know how many papers have been written on As? Thousands.

To quote the authors:

'Our environmental chemistry survey showed that P. hessleri bio-accumulated and tolerated a staggeringly high level of arsenic (approximately 10,000 μg/g, whole body, fresh weight), which is about one magnitude higher than most known arsenic hyperaccumulators (such as polychaete worm Arenicola marina and brake fern Pteris vittata accumulate inorganic arsenic, and polychaete worm Tharyx marioni accumulate organic arsenic).'

Authors are almost the last group to consult if one seeks objective analysis. They are usually self-promoters. Not evil, mind you, but that is the way authors are.

--Smokefoot (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1,4,8,11-Tetraazaundecane, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being antagonistic, fix the problem by adding even one single non-primary source. You link to WP:SECONDARY on your user-page, so you know what I'm asking for. You clearly know more about both his career and the relevant literature than I do, so it shouldn't be difficult. I've started Talk:Brian M. Hoffman#Primary source issue if for some reason you want to drag this out. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: Accounts of Chemical Res and Annual Review are prestigious (peacock?) review venues.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's written like tetrachloroethylene is more toxic than vinyl chloride (known carcinogen since the 1960s), formaldehyde, or even acrylonitrile. Somehow tetrachloroethylene is far more toxic than those and we're just discovering that despite almost 100 years of excessive industrial use and decades of direct medical use. It was used without any proper precautions in the past and the carcinogenicity suspicion came out in 1977 after animal studies, not even epidemiological studies.

How are editors allowed to call random people "BASF shills" or "wanting to sniff solvents" without getting any warnings? 46.106.175.175 (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a 2011 epidemiological study would be seen as outdated. There's a large cancer study on dry cleaners and laundry workers, and it gets ignored and removed for some reason. 46.106.175.175 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People who call other editors shills are blinded by opinions and/or working for some advocacy group. The good news is that user:Zefr, who is very reliable, has edited the article, so it should be ok.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But... Why did they remove a large scale epidemiologic research? It tells a lot on cancer risk of dry cleaning and tetrachloroethylene. Was it because it might make people question the EPA narrative? Also other editors' insistence of removing the translation template was really weird as the Turkish article had extensive information and sourcing. ~2025-36489-52 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

check ~2025-36387-15 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...for your work to split the Oxone(R) content from the other at the KMPS page. Appreciate it, and will look in again after you are done. One minor point. The Crandall eROS article that is cited—presuming here you have access to it—makes reference to a recent improvement in the preparation of the article title compound, not formulated as Oxone(R):

"A convenient method for the preparation of purified KHSO₅·H₂O on a large scale has been developed which allows for significant reduction in the amount of oxidizing agent needed for a reaction."

The quote appears in the update by Shi and Burke ("First Update"), in its first section, "Modification of Oxone". (No wonder editors confound matters.) The quoted statement cites this source:

Travis, B. R.; Ciaramitaro, B. P.; Borhan, B., Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2002, 3429 ,

which is referenced in the article, presently, in {{cite journal... markup. Mentioning this here, because that statement, and statements like it—that have to do with the parent compound, but also with the main ingredient in Oxone(R) and its uses—are relevant to both articles, and so I would encourage a careful read for those, and duplication of those statements and sources.

There will not be many of those, and in general, the Crandall eROS and other synthetic-leaning sources are always 95+% about Oxone(R)-type formulations. But the electrochemistry, the new preparation of the monohydrate, etc., some such things will need to appear twice.

FInally, take some care with the infobox—maybe duplicate it, and mark every entry as needing verification? (Said, because I had the darnedest time figuring out what, if any of that content, was about either subject in play. (If you look in at the parent Caro's acid, you will see they have that as a white crystalline solid in the infobox; I think same issue is in play there (the confounding of free acid and salt properties).

Cheers, ~2025-31110-75 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. A general check and edit that our students often do is a WP:LEAD check, that no material in the lead is unique, and then, that the lead summarises the article. With the duplication, how to you want to manage getting the article in line with that? Do you want to take a pass at it? (I'm not excited about the prospect of coming in just after you finish, and our making very evident and substantial changes.) Cheers. ~2025-31110-75 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like student edits in general because they are unsupervised most of the time and the students just lack perspective.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of environmental content this week, generally not too bad! DMacks (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks:. I confess to approaching their work with significant skepticism, but it looks like you are correct. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gallery of gold art and artefacts 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/Gallery of gold art and artefacts 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.

Fram (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[3] is universally terrible. Of the five I spot-checked, I had to whole-sale undo all of them as various combinations of selective/incorrect reading of source, unsourced, and factually false. DMacks (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Thanks for the heads up on this course. Like you said some of the other courses (astro and atmospheric stuff) are pretty good even if they rely too much on narrow sources. I am going contact the Wiki-mediator (Ian something) and suggest that he suggest that courses tackle our to-do list. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! DMacks (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Smokefoot. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 19:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot, could you please have another look at your changes to two URLs? Leyo 21:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those problems. Strange, it almost looks like vandalism. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot. I was working today on 2-Amino-3-carboxymuconic semialdehyde and as part of that looked at articles related to kynurenine which use your File:Kynurenine pathway wordless.svg. Your drawing of the semialdehyde is missing a double bond, i.e. in the product of reaction #5. While you are correcting that, you might like to add in the stereochemistry of the various amino acids, with wedged bonds to their NH₂ groups. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Check it out. I assumed E double bond. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm sorry to say it is Z to the aldehyde: see 2-Amino-3-carboxymuconic semialdehyde and KEGG entry or Chemspider. Makes sense if you think about how the enzyme that forms it cleaves the benzene ring. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Oh, I started on this re-revision and then realized that the stereochemistry of the other C=C is probably incorrect since the ring closes to make the pyridine ring?--Smokefoot (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your drawing is fine now, thanks. The double bond configurations are somewhat moot as the open-chain aldehydes are unstable and the enamine (as drawn) has to tautomerize to its imine form in order for the necessary bond rotation to occur so it can cyclise onto the remote aldehyde and make the pyridine. A 2018 review at doi:10.1074/jbc.RA118.003320 does show the E bond but most sources have it as Z, which is how it must initially be when the oxygen atome are added to cleave the benzene ring. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Smokefoot! I'm glad that you are joining the March 2026 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]