User talk:Smokefoot

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. (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) 22:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]