Mevans86

Welcome

Hi I noticed finally your long list of editing plans. Your efforts and insights will certainly be welcome. The main challenge to most chemically fluent editors is keeping the referencing general, emphasizing reviews and books, per WP:secondary. Except for historically important precedents, most primary journal references are less useful to readers. The other problem with primary references is that they age and invite vanity citations. My own particular interest in editing organic articles is to bring focus on socio-economic impact, vs a reagent that one's labmates might favor. My sense is that readers are especially interested in learning where a reaction is practiced industrially or biochemically. The editing community interacts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals if you seek advice. By the way, there are few rules here, so the opinions above are just that, opinions. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Smokefoot! I'm definitely looking forward to making an impact on Wikipedia. At the risk of tooting my own horn too much, I think Organic Reactions is exactly the kind of general secondary reference that you refer to. I know a lot less about industrial and biochemical applications than the "laboratory scope" of reactions, although I'd definitely be open to input on those fronts. A few articles would definitely benefit from it (e.g. synthesis of nucleosides). --OrganicReactions (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You must have noticed that many fairly detailed organic chem articles already exits, so to avoid wasted editing energy and avoid hurt feelings, it is worthwhile searching around carefully. Many articles are still imperfectly indexed (the "redirect" businsss). But many fairly obscure rxns and reagents are described. Most of the common fxnl groups are covered, unevenly. One editor has organized organoelement chemistry articles for almost all metals and metalloids, as you have seen because you edited organozinc compounds. Some are skeletal, some thick with top-level broad info. A lot of work is still to be done on upgrading existing articles. Organic Reactions is exactly the right kind of source for such work. Dont worry about the industrial or bio aspects, that info will come eventually, perhaps from me. Talk pages for articles are also good places to comment on your plans.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that a number of the "organo-x" pages refer to reactions that I plan to cover in more detail. My primary thought on the matter was that information about the reagents themselves should be distinct from information about the reactions they undergo; thus, the "organo-x" pages should serve as organizing elements for more detailed reaction pages with perhaps one example and a link out to the reaction page as a "main article." Let me know if you disagree, but this was how I planned to proceed. There's no reason to create the pages if they aren't linked in to existing content anyway, I figure. I plan to engage in a detailed search when these pages are released into the wild. --OrganicReactions (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Reagents are separately described from the organoelement chemistry. Diethylzinc vs organozinc chemistry. The main challenge to new editors with elaborate editing plans is integration with existing material because often they want to insert some large chunk, which is easier done but usually inappropriate. In rare cases, an existing article is so awful that it should be replaced completely, but most existing articles on reagents/rxns/fxnl gps have seriously useful content. The other main challenge with new editing "missions" is that the edits tend (in my opinion) to be narrow, verging toward blog-like treatise or Chem Review-like article. Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a review. In any case, you seem to know what you are doing and can ask if you are unsure. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

doi link formatting

Org.React. is great! As you have found, the wikipedia software has some interesting ways of doing markup. For example, at Baeyer–Villiger oxidation, you added:

Krow, G. R. Org. React. 1993, 43, 251. (doi: 10.1002/0471264180.or043.03)

As far as I have seen, the standard syntax for a DOI String is with no space between "doi:" and the value itself. Luckily, the software actually knows exactly how a doi should be linked to doi.org as if it were a normal type of wikilink and formats it correctly. You can just type [[doi:10.1002/0471264180.or043.03]] to get doi:10.1002/0471264180.or043.03. Also, putting it in parens is an unusual format for a reference. You can use the standard {{cite book}}, or maybe better, {{cite journal}}. They each have doi fields, and automatically do lots of standard formatting according to wikipedia's style guidelines. Your B-V ref could be:

{{cite journal|author=Krow, G. R|journal=[[Org. React.]]|year=|volume=43|pages=251|doi=10.1002/04712641}}

to generate:

Krow, G. R. Org. React. 43: 251. doi:10.1002/04712641. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

DMacks (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --OrganicReactions (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Resources

Hi there Please take a look at our manual of style. Some things which might be particularly of interest include the article naming convention, and the section on structure drawing (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing). There are also other general Wikipedia MOS issues (WP:MOS).

Apart from these resources, you have something even better - a community. If you have any questions, please ask at WT:CHEMISTRY or WT:CHEMICALS as appropriate. Hope this is helpful. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

2+2 Photocycloaddition

You might try to improve this article. Here are my initial views: (i) it is entitled 2+2 but your content is focused on a specialized subtheme, which is cool but not reflective of the title (the broader topic would be more useful), (ii) the references lack titles and doi's, which are hallmarks of good work in Wikipedia chem, (iii) the article does not mention any uses outside of the "ivory tower," whereas most readers are not working on an advanced degree in synthetic organic chemistry. As far as WP is concerned, you have invaluable skills that we seek, but you might try to work with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry to learn more about style and approach. You dont need to submit to some higher power (there is none here), but being consultative is helpful. We are slightly fearful that you are going to ignore existing content, which would be a huge waste of your time.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there more to be said about this class of reactions apart from one specialized type (enone-alkene)? It's such a lopsided article, seemingly better sited at Enone-alkene photocycloaddition or something. What do you intend to do about it? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we remove "photo" from the title and allow the article to cover all known 2+2 cycloadditions. Some of the enone-alkene material is extraneous and can be removed (probably a basic explanation + 1 or 2 examples). We can also begin to incorporate other kinds of 2+2 cycloadditions (I could be wrong, but I think there are metal-catalyzed or -mediated versions out there). --Michael Evans (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. Make sure you take care of the copyright issue before everything else. I'm sure this is just one out of many other articles requiring attention. The way you approached your project, you had absolutely no learning learning curve and now that's a lot of re-work needed. Sorry, that's how it is. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your username

Hi there

I am concerned about your username's compliance with regard to the Wikipedia:Username policy. The gist is, usernames which suggest a single account being shared by multiple users in an organization are frowned upon. If you could think of an alternative username, I'll try to help you make the transition.

While it may be obvious, it is good practice to explicitly define your affiliation it affects your edits here in any way. For example, see User:Smokefoot's userpage. Especially so if you are an "official" representative of Org. React. Being upfront about it helps avoid misunderstandings.

If you need any help, please feel free to drop me a message at my user talk. Once again, I would invite you to drop by WT:CHEMISTRY and WT:CHEMICALS to say hi.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to work with you to solve the problems associated with the articles I wrote

You keep saying things like that, but your actions indicate otherwise. You seem to treat Wikipedia contemptuously: You make zero effort to integrate your content into our article selections. Your formatting structure is mediocre, requiring other editors to do janitorial work. Readers are seeking articles (and editors) with breadth, our readers are not cloistered in some isolated ivory tower - they are trying to learn chemistry, integrate the factoids, and apply the lessons to the real world when possible. Lots of us can create many new ultra-narrow articles on hyperspecialized topics. Hyperspecialized articles with little context are less useful here - we are Wikipedia, not Organic Reactions synoposes. The essence of Wikipedia is collaborative, which 99.9% of the time means improvement of existing articles. So if you truly "would like to work with" Wikipedia, then prove it by integrating your work into existing structure created by hundreds of editors.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's start with the example of electrophilic fluorination. I don't see a problem with linking to that page from organofluorine chemistry. For readers more interested in the details of electrophilic fluorination, the article provides additional details. I see some formatting edits have been made to that page; I can make similar edits to other pages and incorporate them similarly into existing work. See, for instance, the work I've done on amination. Better? --Michael Evans (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Most importantly, please sort out any copyright issues with Org. React. as soon as possible. Unless they release their text under GFDL or Creative Commons (and that should be appropriately marked), we cannot use any direct copies of their work. This should be the highest priority. While it may be hard to do a plagiarism check, one detected, copyright violations are deleted on sight.

With regard to the electrochemical fluorination article. I've pottered around this article, but it still needs work. Links into the article have been introduced [1], but if there are more relevant inward links, that would be desirable.

Please read WP:CHEMMOS and the more general WP:MOS. Section headers will need to be decapitalized apart from the leading letter. Outbound wikilinks can be introduced as well. Would also be nice to format the references in the {{cite journal}} format. Just put whatever you have in. Once done, sic Citation Bot on it, and it'd be nicely formatted with titles and DOIs included.

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Structure_drawing. We often share our images with other-language Wikipedias, most notably the Germans. Having language-free images is often very helpful, and our community has benefitted from it often (see a whole bunch of pictures from a Polish contributor). The <gallery> tag may be helpful for aligning a few images such as structures. Also, we could use your images at much higher resolution. You will note that the above document recommends 600-720 dpi, to allow flexible re-use. Also, at the current resolution some images look a little fuzzy on my screen. Since you most likely did not do all these experiments yourself, would be good to include the reference in the image description tag as well, so that the interested person can find out more. Especially so for other-language Wikipedias, where a non-English speaker may want to discuss that particular reaction in some detail (they may not speak English, but that does not preclude them reading it. Technical German is easy, for example). And yes, you need more in-text references before citing specific examples from the literature.

Lots of text, hopefully you can find some inspiration to make improvements. Good luck. We'll be around if you aren't sure. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Electrophilic amination. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Oore (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! Will do in the future! --Michael Evans (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. I've been looking at your work and you've really done a fantastic job with a large number of articles and with excellent referencing too between this account and your former OrganicChemistry username. Thank you for that. I'd like to present you with this barnstar:

		The Original Barnstar
		For Michael Evans' tireless work on organic chemistry articles. Oore (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Oore :-) --Michael Evans (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bit late, but I wanted to second that! I love your article on Oxoammonium-catalyzed oxidation. I've been thinking of writing on that topic for ages, but never got around to it, but you've been a lot more thorough than I would have been. Many thanks, and keep up the good work! Walkerma (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Allylation Reactions

Hello! I've been trying to figure out what wikipedia already has in the way of allylation reactions and the only examples I've been able to find are your pages on Organostannane addition, Electrophilic substitution of unsaturated silanes. Are you aware of any pages on boron allylations/crotylations or other such allylation reactions?

Mdlevin (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If still editing

Thank you for your fine work; let me know if I can be of help in your adapting to the environment of wkipedia. For instance, numbering reaction schemes is not allowed (inhibits editing and article evolution over long spans of time), nor is the appearance of standard Org Rcns reaction procedures and standard OChem spectroscopic data (no actual how-to's allowed, anywhere). Hence, I removed such from the cyclotrimerisation article this evening.

And note, here, the demand is for secondary, and not primary sources. The ability to select between primary sources to determine preponderant opinions in the field is placed beyond the expertise of editors (even if, as is the case for us, we could provide evidence that it is not). The point is not to have two sets of rules, one for doctoral trained or otherwise experienced chemists, and the other for the rest of editors. Hence, we hold rather religiously to the idea that published reviews and monographs need to provide the outlines, ideas, and examples we use, rather than we ourselves designing or selecting such. (The prohibition is of WP:OR on the part of wikipedia editors.) Drop me a note here, and I will chat, if you wish. Le Prof (Leprof_7272, sometimes logging, often not able). 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it even if you change your user name as Diannaa has allowed you to do. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mevans86. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mevans86|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Also read the following regarding writing an article

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
• you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, not a promo for the book.
• there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)