User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch2022

Titanium Featured article review

I have nominated Titanium 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Alkane stereochemistry into Conformational isomerism

Hi, there has been a recent objection to the merger of Alkane stereochemistry into Conformational isomerism so I was wondering if you would be willing to rejoin the discussion again since the consensus was made a year ago but I want to ensure that this current objection is heard by the original participants of the discussion before I merge and remove this from the backlog. Thanks! -Karthanitesh (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from GreaterPonce665

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:4-Nitroaniline. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 20:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Conjugation (biochemistry)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Conjugation (biochemistry) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 3#Conjugation (biochemistry) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 01:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment

Please cease arbitrarily (and seemingly randomly) reordering the table on this page. Whether or not a table is sortable, information should no be sorted randomly by default. These edits are not constructive and will be reverted. Filetime (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoride

Hi Smokefoot. I'm completely disinterested in whether fluoride batteries should be in the Fluoride article. But if you are going to remove the details could you make sure to not cause cite errors. You've twice removed not just details of the batteries, but also part of the preceding cite. Thanks LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my sloppiness. Won't happen again. Thank you for the careful editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polar effects

Nice spot on polar effect. Electron-donating group and Electron withdrawing group (and numerous variant spelling thereof) both link to that page - but they really shouldn't because it's just awful. I briefly thought about repointing them to electronic effect but that is also bad. What in your option would be the correct name for a page about these? --Project Osprey (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diene complexes has been nominated for merging

Category:Diene complexes has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novolaks

Hi Smokefoot. You started the article Novolak in 2019. Novolaks are included in the phenol-formaldehyde article. Both articles contain similar information. What is the purpose of a separate Novolak article? Sandcherry (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing

Hi Smokefoot, I used one of your drawings for an article in deWP, and an eagle-eyed reader complained now that you created a four-bond oxygen atom in the lower left corner, maybe you can change that when you get a chance. Thank you. Cheers! --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mister Pommeroy:Thank you! I redrew the whole thing (tedious!) and hopefully error-free.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick (but hopefully not too tedious :-)) support! --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

Hi Smokefoot. I've added back the IPCC sites to biology as they are required by referencing. At some point someone added short forms refs that require these cites to the Biosphere section, but forgot to added the cites themselves. If you wish to split the Biosphere bisection from the article please do, but the cites need to remain until that is done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise needed

Hello, Smokefoot. You don't know me, but I stumbled on some edits by Herravondure, who I also don't know, involving "de-orphaning" articles. I know nothing about that process, but discovered that you and another editor educated Herravondure on May 2 about those types of edits. But I can see that since then, there have been many edit summaries showing "Successfully de-orphaned!", not to mention the hundreds done prior to your inquiries on the editior's talk page. I just wanted to see if you could review some of Herravondure's de-orphaning edits to determine if they're being done as you instructed. I thought I should let you know in order to prevent an ongoing problem. Thanks much. Stoarm (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back in May, User:Herravondure did not contribute in ways that I would recommend, but in recent months that editor has desisted from mainstream chemistry and applications of chemistry, which are my focus. Wikipedia is so sprawling that I avoid chasing problem editors.

It is my observation that Wikipedia is populated by a lot of seemingly compulsive editors, some of whom may be children, who contribute all sorts of esoteric content because it satisfies some urge even when they really have nothing to contribute. So long as such contributions are super esoteric (i.e., dont matter), such content could go unchecked for years. In any case, you are welcome to take up the User:Herravondure predicament with other editors. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. In any case, thanks for the great work I see you're doing for this project. Wikipedia needs a lot more editors like you. By the way, the circumstances surrounding the Surreal Barnstar you received this past October made me chuckle. Well done. Stoarm (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selenosulfide vs Thioselenide

Hello, you've recently created selenosulfide but we also have thioselenide which seems to be the same thing by another name. Project Osprey (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I will deal with this oversight. Thank you, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xylan Wikipedia page

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I recently completed a PhD on xylan chemistry and made some edits to the Wikipedia page. I am not sure why you removed the references I added. Can you let me know so I can keep it in mind for next time I edit an article? Thanks, Amanda Xylhail (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xylhail: Hi Amanda: Having a PhD in Chem is convenient for contributing to Wikipedia Chem. Also important are knowledge of guidelines (see WP:NOT, WP:COI (dont cite your pals) and WP:SECONDARY (cite general sources) And most important is perspective, which is not conferred with the PhD.

So consider this: 26396 publications discuss xylan. Should we aim to cite all of them? Or, maybe we should focus on the 13,733 papers that have appeared in the preceding decade. That comes to about what? 3-4 papers EACH DAY. Is that what you recommend? Suddenly it becomes apparent that one's precious paper is afloat an ocean of other precious, super-insightful papers. So, excusing my tone, you can now appreciate the situation here. Bottom line, cite books and major reviews. And if you are indeed smart, contribute to topics slightly outside of your thesis work. Thanks for asking.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of page P-Anisidine to prevent Wikipedia:Vandalism

Smokefoot, hello!

Could you protect page P-Anisidine to prevent vandalism?

85.109.136.232 (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk to your parents or your teacher before editing on topics where you are unfamiliar. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is having a bit of a time-out (but I also protected that page to prevent ongoing disruption there--thanks to them for calling attention to the problem there. DMacks (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diborane smell

For better logic and clarity should not the diborane description:

It is a toxic, colorless, and pyrophoric gas with a repulsively sweet odor.

be changed to:

It is a toxic, colorless, and pyrophoric gas whose combustion products have a repulsively sweet odor.

I see that details of the combustion products are farther down the page. I should not make the change, because my chemistry knowledge is poor wondering if there is some accepted convention for this omission. Years ago I did "dispose" of 1 cc of diborane with a bb-gun, and the explosion turned heads from hundreds of feet away. I was not downwind. Jslipscomb (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well useful comment, accepted with much gratitude. And a wonderful story. Lucky you. The actual species perceived by smell is an old but obscure debate. Do we smell the molecule or the molecule after it has partially or fully hydrolyzed or oxidized or both (plus the smell of the other oxidation/hydrolysis products). So the convention is usually (I dont really know for sure): we just report what people say (and in the case of diborane, that they dont retest your experiment). The other practical matter is that we cant report personal observations as fact. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. Story of the blast (mixed with 5 cc pentaborane, which takes a second to burn so flamethrower) at Air Rifle. Yes, in some ways my high school years were cool. Jslipscomb (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethylbenzene

Hi Smokefoot, I used your file File: EthylbenzenePost2000route.svg for the upgrade of the article Benzene as featured article in de:WP. It was noted in the discussion that the methyl group of the ethyl benzene should be written out as -CH3, as in this file. I would appreciate it if you could create such a version. Thank you very much. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really dislike that way of drawing. The German chemists are normally sane have been over-ruled by nonchemists, I fear. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, what can I say. I hadn't even noticed it yet before it was mentioned in the discussion. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, I remember endless discussions about this kind of formula at the article Tetraethyllead, where multiple times it was claimed that this kind of formula would represent tetramethyllead (see de:Diskussion:Tetraethylblei#Strukturformel (erste Abbildung im Artikel) ist falsch; I do not know if you understand some German, but it´s claimed that the structural formula is simply wrong). Non-chemist seem to have a real problem with it. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1,1'-Ferrocenediisocyanate

Thanks for the infobox (and prompting me to start the stub article itself). According to the x-ray in one of the refs, the ferrocene is actually eclipsed not staggered (though the two isocyanates are indeed aligned with each other). I was hoping to find a ref commenting on this slightly unusual Fc geometry, but no luck. But it did also remind me how obsolete some orgo and biochem texts are regarding hydrogen-bonding. DMacks (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for contributing to the ferrocene theme. The rings in ferrocenes are swiveling around with tiny activation barriers, so I figured that reproducing the X-ray structure with ChemDraw was not so important. Probably the carboxylic acid are H-bonded. Was hoping to find info on the anhydrides eventually. Also Josiphos ligands could use help. They are probably the only ferrocenes that have made it commercially.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diacetyl peroxide

Hi Smokefoot, I see that you deleted safety content that was referenced by language in a patent. Not referencing patents per se is fine by me. I would like Wikipedia entries in chemistry to be useful as a safety resource though especially as it relates to accidentally generating organic peroxides in a reaction. There are hazards of accidentally generating diacetyl peroxide and not knowing about it whilst proceeding. This hazard/risk is not hypothetical. Serious bodily harm has occurred in a fairly recent laboratory accident at a relatively small experimental scale. The chemistry profession is still not very good at communicating incident causation or being transparent about reactive chemical hazards of certain reactions. Your content deletion may not help a safety cause. Not sure what to do next if I want the deleted content be reposted in some other way. I think you may be holding the safety key. Shoefly (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DCUP

Please do not make cut&paste page moves; we require edit histories stay together for attribution purposes. If you still want this page renamed, please use any of the options available via requested moves. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC) @Jalen Folf: thank you. Dumb move by me. I will submit a request. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I object to the move of DCUP. Please see WP:RM. 162 etc. (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@162 etc.: OK, I haven't strong feelings. Just trying to help the many users of a popular chemical. 60 000 tons of dialkyl peroxide are produced annually by industry. That mass is probably greater than all of the musician's fans, so I figured that the chemical is at least as significant as the musician. I will leave a note on the relevant talk page. Thanks for the heads up.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note I've also made a small edit to your good-faith contribution to the RM discussion. As the proposer of the move, your support is implied - it's bad form to also add a "Support" vote. Thanks! 162 etc. (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oops. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good news/bad news

The student work on Enantiomer and others in their class are at least partially constructive and the problems aren't nearly as bad as usual school projects. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am over reacting, so thanks. I will tread carefully. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hello @Smokefoot, please see my usertalk. I am still struggling where to put what. Thank you, Simone GrossklausSimone (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A subtlety

Hi Smokefoot, this could be labeled advertising, for its content and possibly for selecting audience by opinion. Current proposal is no big deal, but in more contentuous issues this could be used against you. And I see no use in your posts being rejected ;-) (In this move issue I have no opinion, because I don't understand it). Have a nice edit. DePiep (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to ask for a vote on this topic, but wrote vote for the proposal. Oh well, your message just reminded me of just what a shitty job I am doing in general. Ugh. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. DePiep (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]