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, 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]