User talk:Chem777

Welcome, but be careful

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are:

Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest. Many new editors cite themselves mainly. That behavior is unacceptable.
Finally a technical comment: Grubbs is elegant for academics, but the real world relies almost exclusively heterogeneous catalysts for alkene metathesis.

If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me aware of the rules regarding Wikipedia editing… I did not know they existed. With that said, feel free to revise my edits if you think they are uninformative. I won’t be offended. I will try to find reviews in the future, but some fundamental work is very recent so it hasn’t had time to be incorporated into reviews yet. Regarding you technical comment: You are correct that industry does use heterogeneous catalysts for alkene metathesis, which I am guessing you are thinking cross metathesis and ring closing metathesis. Most of my editing thus far has been related to ROMP however. In which, there are very few examples of ROMP being used in industry in which all do rely on homogenous catalysts. This is one of the major issue with the ROMP wiki-page. It was written assuming general metathesis, which does not apply to ROMP. Even the cited literature for (1) on the wiki page confirms it. And I quote “Several industrial processes involving **homogeneous ROMP reactions** have been developed and brought into practice. Most of them use ill-defined multicomponent catalytic systems based on molybdenum, tungsten, or ruthenium salts, along with various cocatalysts.” Additionally, the citation (1) give more motivation for a Grubbs centered wiki page with “new developments owing to the emergence of stable ruthenium-alkylidene complexes that are both highly active and user-friendly. In particular, the Grubbs catalysts of the first and second generations have hold the attention of process scientists. In the field of ROMP, these well behaved initiators were first employed commercially in the polymerization of dicyclopentadiene, because of the many potentials of poly-DCPD resins.”

Also, what is the ‘real world’? If Grubbs is only being used to make polymers in a research lab, than I agree it not relevant for Wikipedia yet. But, what if it in a start-up commercializing a polymer for injection molding and 3D printing. Or what if grubbs is being used to make polymers are in clinical trials, for drug-delivery. Does that make it the relevant enough?

Anyways, ROMP and other metathesis pages need work, but I will withhold making more edits to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Re rules: Check out WP:NOT.

Another rule is WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia usually does not aspire to disclose fast breaking news, but focuses on digested knowledge. In the case of ROMP >6000 publications have appeared according to ChemAbs. 800 since 2016. It is impossible for most editors to judge which of these papers should be highlighted (mine should be cited, right?). By relying on secondary refs (reviews) or better WP:TERTIARY (= books), the COI problem is partially solved.

Re-scan doi:10.1002/0471238961.metanoel.a01. Industry seems to use het. catalysts almost completely. Academics write articles justifying academic work, that is human nature, as is citing one's own papers. Of course maybe industry is naive and should switch, but maybe they know something .... Just sayin'. In any case, good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This my first introduction into online editing, so thank you for educating me on the ethics.

I am glad that you presented this DOI, because that is what I was quoting from. In which, it is a publication NOT about ROMP, but metathesis in general, however if you go to the section titled “4.2. Production of Polymers.” You will find in the first paragraph, second and third sentence in this paragraph: “Several industrial processes involving homogeneous ROMP reactions have been developed and brought into practice. Most of them use ill-defined multicomponent catalytic systems based on molybdenum, tungsten, or ruthenium salts, along with various cocatalysts.” So my claim still remains, people apply general metathesis information to ROMP, which is not the most appropriate. With that, it was difficult for me to find unifying information on ‘ill-defined multicomponent catalytic systems’, however there is significant work in Grubbs catalysts(which have existed for +30 years) and were part of the 2005 Nobel that Grubbs received does exist. And I hope you would agree that work receiving Nobel Prize level recognition is relevant for the general population to be informed on.

For the “ Academics write articles justifying academic work, that is human nature, as is citing one's own papers. Of course maybe industry is naive and should switch, but maybe they know something .... Just sayin'.” Comment. I believe you are pointing out that academics do a lot writing and research that doesn’t translate into greatest significance for the world at large (correct me if I am wrong), which I agree with. However, I will point out that a good portion of publish documents in scientific journals (that you are group into ‘academic work’) does come from industry. So ‘umbrella statements’ need to be used with caution and research topics need to be analyzed individually for their merit.

Bottom line: you came to Wikipedia and edited four articles, each to highlight your own contributions. You are four-for-four. Most editors are here for some sort of general benefit. But your publications are so very compelling and your knowledge so broad that you had no choice. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You statement is not accurate.

As an expert in ROMP, I came here to improve and correct some significant issues in relation to ROMP. I started my edits with the work I know the best, and I was continuing to grow it (which included citations which are not my own).

Now I only just started my edits, when you chimed in that it would be unethical for me to cite me or my colleagues. And that is a sever issue, as I am direct colleagues with Grubbs, his graduates, and others in the field which have defined ROMP. Thus I let it be, and prayed that an expert that does not have any conflicts of interest fixes it!

I have not started editing any other pages as I know I am not an expert in that I saw needs fixing as much as ROMP needs and I do not want to miss inform anyone.

Now I have seen you have converted ROMP back to the old format, which is well within your rights. But then I am holding you personally responsible for finding a ROMP expert who as no conflict of interest to fix this page as you have already proven with your own reference that homogeneous catalysts are the primary catalyst in industry and academia, which clearly not accurate represent in the ROMP page!

Also, a friendly reminder on some Wikipedia pages that you may not be aware of WP:DNB and WP:WQ.