Jump to content

Talk:Hash oil/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merge with hashish

I propose to merge this article into hashish and redirect it, SqueakBox 01:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not for or against that proposal (although you went ahead with that merge anyway), however someone created what appears to be a derived work over at Honey Oil. —Tokek 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not strong against this plan but I think honey oil deserves its own article. Both articles could become more lengthy—especially the article about hashish. --mms (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There is confusion here.....honey oil is not synonymous with butane honey oil. Honey oil was around long before butane extraction was introduced....like 30 years before....check your history stoners!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.54.151 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Alternative talk page

Talk:Butane hash oil exists, but Butane hash oil RDRs to Honey oil. So somehow they should be merged? pfctdayelise (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dangers

A section on dangers of this process would be a good idea. The basic process I just saw on youtube and a web page I just read, warn about extreme danger as the device to in-case the cannabis and insert the butane, basically becomes an incendiary device. The Butane itself is literally boiled (albeit at a lower temperature) off in an open container (usually glass) leaving the butane soaked vegetation still evaporating in the device. This needs to come with a "Don't try this at home" warning in a way.....or at least attempt to idiot proof it by not going further than this in an explanation. Wikipedia does not need to be a "how to" manual. If other editor wish to go into detail I wont stop it, just be responsible with what you write.

Was that too preachy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. I added some warnings to the page for you. WARNING! Possession and manufacture of hash oils is illegal. DANGER! Butane is not generally regarded as safe (GRAS). It vaporizes quickly and can cause an explosion.

There are also ICD 10 codes for medical billing of burns and records of confirmed and presumed hash lab explosions accounting for a 10% of burns. CharlesMJames (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

DANGER! Hospitals have reported severe lung damage and deaths from vaping unknown vape mixtures. Some of these mixtures were reported to contain hash oil. CharlesMJames (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC) VAPI, EVAPI, EVALI is the acronym for vaping associated pulmonary lung injury . As of November there have been 39 deaths and 2000 cases in the United States. CharlesMJames (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Laboratory accidents

A commercial lab accident resulting in an explosion and fire at a GenCanna CBD cannabis botanical extraction facility in Kentucky was reported in November of 2019. Some the original chemists died in laboratory accidents trying to extract cannabis in the 1800's at Cambridge. Wood, Spivey, and Easterfield.

Article Name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. It seems that Honey oil is a specific kind of Hash oil, and so both have their own articles. Aervanath (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Health risks

There should be a list of health risks aside from the usual effects of cannibus that its linked to, mostly becuase of the solvents its associated with and how much stronger it is when smoked over hashish or cannibus.

-Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codisious (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually been proven more Butane and solvents are 'inhaled' when butane lighters are used on Bowls and similar smoking devices compared to the amounts taken in using BHO- J.S (I dont see an article either about the health risks of "cannibus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:409:8400:464:A01B:46F0:3F37:5675 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Extracts are much more potent and difficult to measure dosages weighing only a few grains. A simple fact sheet would be a good idea. Cannabis ICD 10 codes are listed under F12 and can be found at 304.30 in the DSM-5. CharlesMJames (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the toxicity and detectability of residual butane in butane honey/hash oil the facts and arguments are presented in a thread at ICMAG Concentrate Forums titled "At what ppm can you taste butane?" https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=348869 SkyHighLer JohnSchuyler (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hash oil vape cartridge illness and deaths are trending in the summer and autumn of 2019. There seems to be a problem with some ingredients in the vaping community that is utilizing hash oil in their vaping mixtures. The black market vape cartridges were 30% Vitamin E Acetate and had detectable levels of pesticides where as California regulated products were 60% or 90% THC as claimed and had no pesticides. CharlesMJames (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Text-merge

Unbelievable

I only got about half way down before I could not contain myself any longer. This page is literally full of errors and misinformation. more than half of the claims are outright wrong, and the majority of the remainder are speculative. I would edit this article, but all of my edits would immediately be reverted, as I am not a registered user (nor will I register for this purpose). thus I will attempt to educate you with exceedingly basic chemistry knowledge for the purposes of educating the general public:

I will edit a few things. I am a chemist. I have a BS in chemistry and did research in an organic laboratory for 3 years, working 20-60 hours per week. I know what I am talking about in this matter. Furthermore, I know most of this information from excessive experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

maybe you should check because everyone uses colibri which is triple refined n-butane which when put into a pyrex dish and placed in a pan wth water, the water boils and helps the evaporation process. Once the bubbles have stopped, the butane will be done. leave it over night for saftey. problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.178.119 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

wrong. "everyone" more commonly use one of the following brands: King or Vector. Colibri butane is too rare and too difficult to purchase in bulk. Both vector and King are available in 12x250mL packs, vs the dinky 100 or so mL colibri bottles. King has been one of the main and most common butanes since 2004.68.6.79.96 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I just basically rewrote the whole article. Feel free to edit, but all of the information is viable and correct. There are no references. This is because extraction of a natural product from a plant material is "basic knowledge" to any chemist. it is covered in general organic chemistry laboratories that teach according to ACS education requirements. it is also an exceedingly simple concept that literally requires no references. feel free to tear it apart, but it would be a waste. it is much more correct and informative than the previous version68.6.76.141 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a Chemist and have been published twice and work for the private sector. Ok. first of all chemistry labs use HPLC grade reagents. Secondly, what is triple refined butane? Common brands are Sigma Aldrich. The public cannot buy these reagent grade solvents. Jesus christ, if anyone here really is a chemist, then please go and cite your sources. If not I suggest this page be deleted.Alchemist314 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If a chemist wrote this article, then the school that gave him a B.S. should be ashamed of itself. This is ridiculous. If you are offended by this then go back and cite each of your claims.Alchemist314 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The claims made on THC content (per volume, per mass?) are outrageous - someone has been severely confused about their terms and facts (considering the source quite likely due to negligence). The claimed portions of THC content could only be a total stacked cannabioid/cannabinoid tally for an impure extraction of the essential plant oils. How the hell is someone supposed to create a discriminating delta-9-THC extraction armed with OTC solvents, kitchenware and a basement tek? The maximum THC percent anyone can achieve with these methods is the original percent of THC in all original extracted essential oils (CBD, CBN and a myriad others). Furthermore, I must know this stuff, for I (almost) have a BSc in internet chemistry. Someone, anyone, please do something about the whole article, it's horrible. Except the pictures, they're quite nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.14.144 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This Page Should Be Deleted

I am a chemist, and there are too many mistakes throughout this page to go through and correct. This appears to have been written by someone with a knowledge of chemistry gained over the internet and represents no peer-reviewed sources. It appears to basically be a how-to-guide to break the law, and quite frankly should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.208.181 (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

welcome to the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.194.245 (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


Please Read, especially whoever wants to keep this page.

Wikipedia clearly states, "the point is not to train but to present facts" "facts must be verifiable". Someone's personal experience or claims made without supporting scientific evidence should not be included. Since 98 percent of this article contains unverified claims, it should be deleted. I am speechless. If you are going to say something is toxic, cite a source. The article says "methanol is relatively safe" then goes on to say " methanol is toxic". Claims made about potency, methods and materials must be sourced. You can not say x contains impurities, then cite it. If you are going to list the physical properties of butane, source it. Finally, I have done extractions of plant pigments to run on HPLC, and guess what we used as the non-polar solvent, petrolium ethers!. Butane and all the other non-polar solvents will extract chlorophyll as well as lutein, xanthophyll, carotene and other pigments since they are also non-polar. This article makes no mention of even a separatory funnel. If this article is going to be about the clandestine manufacture of hash oil, then cite news reports or government reports. If you are going to talk about extractions and dangers of chemicals, please go to scifinder or get MSDS's and cite the sources. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not erowid, and it is not an avenue for people to share their experience. It is an Encyclopedia, which I'm sorry, is not interested in your experiences or claims, unless they are published and verifiable by some kind of peer reviewed journal. By the way, I have been published as a chemist and if people are concerned about my credentials feel free to contact me and will provide them.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits

All edits are addressing cleanup tags. Searching for valid references, also.--Mjpresson (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed references

In order to incorporate inline citations into this article I'm considering being bold, using a few articles from Cannabis Culture Magazine, a Canadian cannabis-only website for the paper magazine. Looking at the site I think it should be ok considering the subject which is difficult to cite with the standard sources. Please provide feedback of you feel strongly on the issue. http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/ --Mjpresson (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

References

I've added some sources but please help to improve this article by adding more references.--Mjpresson (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FEMA note

In February 2013, an American government agency FEMA issued an alert on its emergency services sector noticeboard with information concerning critical infrastructure protection. The post notes the possible mis-identification of extraction vessels employed in hash oil manufacture scene as pipe bombs, or methamphetamine lab accidents.

This section is missing a ref, and doesn't seem entirely notable. petrarchan47tc 06:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I chose to copy edited the phrasing used by the editor who inserted this so it was not written in presumption of America being the center of universe, but did not want to just delete what he/she had contributed unnecessarily. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this a vegetable fat?

I was just trying to figure out if this is a plain old vegetable fat like coconut oil, olive oil, corn oil, etc. I searched this page but it's not listed, should it be?

Bryan (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a vegetable fat or oil, but rather an absolute or concrete extract of hashish from cannabis resin. There is some confusion because modern extracts in some states are called hemp oil when indeed it is not hemp seed oil. To add to the confusion hash oil is oil soluble and mixed with vegetable oils including hemp seed oil. Hemp seed oil can be made from the seeds of cannabis plants. CharlesMJames (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC) What is also interesting is that vegetable glycerin is a main ingredient in vape mixture formulas and it is being mixed with hash oils.CharlesMJames (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Marijuana Oil

Perhaps this article should be renamed Marijuana Oil or Cannabis Oil (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/12/marijuana-oil-bill-passes-ky-senate/6353389/) as that seems to be a more accepted term over "Hash". --119.95.98.128 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hash oil is still popular vernacular in 2017, so keep it or create a page called cannabis concentrates, extractions, concretes, and absolutes. CharlesMJames (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Cannabinol and cannabindon were the words used to describe early extracts of hashish and charas in the late 19th century. Cannabinol is now the term used to describe only one of the cannabinoids.CharlesMJames (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Better dabber photo?

Can somebody please either a) find a photo of somebody using hash oil who isn't wearing a Gandalf costume, or b) ditch the photo entirely? 206.174.34.147 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Butane content of unpurged oil

ive placed a request for citation in the article of the claim there is any measurable butane remaining in 'unpurged' oil. i have never seen any verified test results that support this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.207.52 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire paragraph was unsourced, with citation requests dating back to September 2013. [2] The content may be restored at any time, provided reliable sources are available to support the claims. There is no need to be promoting pseudoscience or otherwise longstanding unsourced material on Wikipedia. If you have any questions regarding this removal or our editorial policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

the paragraph was far from unsourced my friend, please check the history! i am asking for a citation on the claim of butane remaining in "unpurged" oil, so i believe we are on the same side here. please stop reverting the page, as some info is valid and useful. we have to follow procedure and not just nuke what we dont like, this is why i placed the reuest for citiation rather than deleting what i didnt agree with! thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.207.52 (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

as per the page you linked, i dont think i am out of line in giving a chance for citations to be placed, rather than reverting some poor saps work, if citations exist; "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[5]"

citation required tags as an interim solution to what is clearly an article in progress seems a fair compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.207.52 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Parts of Article Have a Seeming Agenda

This article is about Hash Oil. Why does this article attempt to make links between hash oil manufacturing and medical marijuana? The attempt to make this link is not presented as controversial, nor is it presented in a category that would be proper for making such a link. It seems to me that someone has an agenda!

Personally, I don't know whether or not there is a link, nor do I care. I just know that the way it is presented is not proper and is not consistent with Wikipedia standards.

206.251.23.138 (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Minnesota Department of Public Safety

Minnesota Department of Public Safety is not a proper source for verifying the purity of a drug, and certainly don't use a PDF of a brochure they handed out to kids. The claim isn't necessary anyway, but if you are going to claim a purity of a product, wax, that is 99%, then it should come from a better source than a state issued brochure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

of course. i forgot we live in a post-truth world in which government agencies are all incompetent and lie. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
When it comes to cannabis, indeed we do. This is why we insist on quality sources independent of the topic. This isn't new nor unique to cannabis related topics. They are not exempt from WP:BRD, and I have challenged the validity of that contentious citation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I added the 99% based based on the Minnesota source; you have rejected the source (which I don't agree with but between you and the hash oil advocates rejecting it, I yield). What I find bizarre - and I mean bizarre - is that you are demanding (!) to leave the content generated from that source in the article. I can't think of a single reason why that makes sense. But again, whatever. I am sure one of the advocates will come and remove it and then you can edit war with them. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't demand you leave in the content, you could have deleted it at any time. I just didn't want that sourced used as it is inappropriate for this topic, and it was flatly wrong. By definition, wax can't be 99% pure. Shatter maybe, after you have separated out the wax. No reliable source is actually making percentage claims, and 99 percent is simply not credible if you know the science and methods used. I have since added a source that is independent and reworded the sentence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes you did. I removed the 99% since it is unsourced; you restored it. Your current edit is fine. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
My mistake. Regardless, I was working on actual reliable sources at the time. There is a lot of hyperbole and propaganda, especially from the US government, when it comes to cannabis, beginning with Harry Anslinger. There's also a lot of self-professed cannabis experts who are simply users or small growers, but have bad information. This is why stuff has to be sourced really well if you want accuracy. Since it is still illegal on a federal level, there is still a shortage of solid scientific data in medical journals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Dear editors, Thanks for writing this content years ago. IT may interest you that alot of scientific research by pharmacists and chemist was put into this topic in the nineteenth century. Cannabin (1845), cannabinol (1890), crude cannabinol, cannabinene, cannabindon were some of the some of the early words for Cannabis extracts. In 2017 High Times magazine wrote an article to help clear up some of the confusion about the different terminologies used to name hydrocarbon or alcohol hash oils. Evaporated ethanol hash oils have probably been made since the invention of the alembic still and Cannabis infused vegetable oils even longer. Other terminology can be borrowed from the perfume industry to help clarify the slang for the new techniques. In 2017 news reporters are reporting that the hash oil is exploding and omitting the solvent type, so the page for hash oil remains relevant and should not be deleted. I moved the warning to the top of the page. The three hash oils that HT mentions are alcohol oil, butane oil and CO2 oil. I am guessing that this is becoming newsworthy because the butane and ethanol or isopropyl alcohol vapors are igniting in poorly ventilated homes. http://hightimes.com/grow/concentrated-cannabis-part-i-extractions-101/ Perhaps a page on cannabis extracts would be in order as would a page on hash lab explosions. CharlesMJames (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

History

In Marihuana, 1938 the author cites several historic works on making hash oils in the mid nineteenth century in France, Germany, and England including a challenge by the Society de Pharmacie in 1848 to isolate the effective ingredients of cannabis. They agreed that the resulting product was an aromatic amber syrup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesMJames (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Gold described the use of alcohol and activated charcoal in honey oil production by 1989,[14]" The book referenced, Cannabis Alchemy by D Gold has basically been the same since it was first published in 1973, Michael Stark's work was published a little later as Marijuana Potency, later changed to Marijuana Chemistry. Both Gold's and Stark's work should continue to be referenced in the article. The honey oil process described by Gold is an ethanol extraction followed by a low boiling point petroleum ether (pentane/hexane) wash, an activated carbon filtering step is suggested for further refinement. JohnSchuyler (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


Diagram request

Shifted from page Butane hash oil:Talk. Egmason (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

I added two introduction paragraphs. Feel free to expand them or remove that template. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I tried a couple of edits yesterday before I became a registered user today, but they were undone by the automated monitoring system. I don't know if it was the content or the links I included in the references that was the problem. The two subjects I found unbelievable were the THC concentration percentages, and the history of BHO, butane honey/hash oil. To address these concerns I quoted the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing report on the Brotherhood of Eternal Love (90% THC in the early '70's - according to Stark the Brotherhood used fractional distillation to achieve this, not butane extraction.) Here is the link I included in the reference, https://www.scribd.com/document/21962123/Brotherhood-of-Eternal-Love Also quoted was the post from 1998 of freejon describing how to extract with butane, the reference was my thread at ICMAG Concentrate Forums titled The History of BHO, https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=333838 Afaik neither link has copywrite issues, I'm sorry if I don't understand the problem with their inclusion. JohnSchuyler (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Cale Bonner's Article Review/Critique for Dr. Wyatt's Writing for Biologists class.

Cb365315 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Cale Bonner (cb365315)

WHY I chose this article: I choose this article because i believed it to be a good middle of the road article that gave a decent overview of the topic, but lacked up to date info, pictures, and a few sub sections such as a more in depth discussion of the various types of hash oil (solventless and bho) . With how fast products and trends change in rapidly developing cannabis industry, this article is behind, and is one that needs updating regularly.

Is it easy to understand? I thought everything in this article was easy to comprehend, and also descriptive enough to present a good mental image of the topic. Vocabulary used was not watered down, but if too difficult, definitions were linked or easily determined using context clues.

Organization/Focus For the most part, I like the organization of the information that the article does have, except for 1 thing. The ingredients in vape liquids section needs to be with the “use” sub section of the safety section. It’s important to include, and requires good detail, but is too specific to be a broad section. Besides that, nothing else is redundant/off topic.

Evidence/Reference Quality Most of the information given is backed up well, but I did find a few sources that linked me to news website (buzzfeed) that may not be the most reliable scientifically. Some credible sources included government websites (Canada, Colorado). Only a few claims (3-5) that were lacking citation and just seemed like somebody’s knowledge. Could prove the same point by looking up sales or seizure records from those relevant years. Hard to cite research that has been proven through experiments/

How to improve: -update photos to display variety of extract type, and range of product qualities. 

     -A few citations are needed/missing (find more references that are relevant and reliable). There are also a lot of unnecessary resources regarding the harmful vape oil controversies. This topic is important, but takes up about 1/4 of the references, and uses much less than that in the actual article. 
     -The "History" portion of the article is lacking information about the resurgence of hash making due to the demand for the highest end "solventless" or water hash oils, completely void of butane or other chemical solvents. (Maybe include high times information on when they started judging hash oil again/when the trend resurged).

Intro: Intro is present with a definition of the topic covered, but it does not summarize the article’s key points. Instead, it gives a couple general points about hash oil, but does not allude to the topics covered further in the article.

Headings/Subheadings: Headings with appropriate subheadings. Few sections missing though. Would like to include a section for solventless/water hash, and a section for bho or other solvent made extracts. Have subheadings for the various types within those 2 major groups.

Things missing: More in depth section of concentrate types. Up to date pictures and list of concentrate types/techniques. Full spectrum of qualities out there (lowest end “crude” oil to highest end “fullmelt hash” and “hash rosin”). References for pictures included are missing.

Images/diagrams/footnotes: Images are in appropriate places, but could use more displaying variety of extracts. Footnotes are simple, yet informative.

Neutral Coverage? Coverage seems mostly neutral, discusses hazards of producing/consuming, but not so many of the benefits of consuming hash oil.

Facts emphasized? Facts, or the lack of, are emphasized well. Opinions don’t bleed into the article, and information presented is objective, not subjective. Stats like sales numbers, potentcy percentages, are listed. Contents and makeup of the oil is scientifically described as well. Where some areas are lacking evidence/research, this is clearly stated. I like how they didn't really try to explain things that did not have evidence to back it up.

Cb365315 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Cale Bonner (cb365315)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cb365315.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 April 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Artalek510.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hash_oil/Archive_1&oldid=1089528934"