User talk:Adrianpip2000

Greetings
I noticed your edits to fluorination agents and then went to your user page which begins with "Trying my best. Please let me know if I've made any errors. (It's really hard to keep track of all the rules and best practices.)" So I will respond. There are not really many rules beyond common sense. Most editors here are focused on Elvis impersonators, video games, movie stars, etc.

For chemists, a common challenge for newish editors is avoiding WP:COI. Specifically, new editors tend to plug publications by themselves or their friends. Just refrain. Aside from being very uncool, that behavior can get one banned. And it has the effect of backfiring.

For chemists, another issue is that new editors tend to cite primary journal articles, but the guidelines really call for reviews or books: WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY, respectively. Thus, a very worthwhile mission is making sure that standard textbook info, say March, is well represented in our articles.

Speaking for my own biases, academic editors can be deeply delusional about what is authentically useful vs what some blowhard in Cambridge (take your pick) says about their reagent, compound, or nano-thing. No one has made a dime or saved a life with MOFs, for example. In any case, you can reach out to the chemistry project or leave notes on the talk pages. We need editors to fill gaps and fact check. Happy editing, --Smokefoot (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)