User talk:Wikichem

How does X work?
I am trying to figure out how I can put chemical structures into the article. I have drawn the structures already but dont see how I can get them into the chem template (which I copied and then edited from the styrene article)? Also, if I want to reference some of the data in the chembox, how can I do that?. Grateful for any help. --Wikichem (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd probably get a better answer by posting at WT:WikiProject Chemistry, though I'll leave your helpme in place until someone better than me can answer your query. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The images in the styrene infobox are pictures that other editors created with a graphic editing program (e.g. Adobe Illustrator, MacPaint, The GIMP). If you've created an image of a chemical structure, you can upload it to wikipedia and then add a link to the image from an article! Tim Pierce (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the rapid feedback!! Wikichem (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Biodiesel
Hi, thanks for your work on the article, but Wikipedia can't accept material copied from other sources. Copyright law and the GFDL require that any added material not be copyrighted by someone else unless the copyright holder adds the material. Basically this means that in addition to citing sources, you have to synthesize the material in your own words, generally from more than one source. See Copyrights, FAQ/Copyright, and some of the linked pages for more on that. Also, there already was a part of the article on recent developments, the material would be better there. Let me know if I can help in any way. - Taxman Talk 15:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the valuable feedback Taxman. I thought it would be okay if I cited the source, but I guess I was being a little lazy since the original was so well written.  I'll look for other sources and re-word it.  Gratefully, Wikichem (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Linear alkyl benzene
I read your user page where you have access to many sources. You might tap these resources for linear alkyl benzene, i.e. Ullmann's, reviews, books (vs reports, patents, and websites, which are less convincing). The participation of industrial chemists is particularly welcome way to bring increased balance to articles that otherwise tend to be mainly influenced by academic/environmental advocacy folks.

I also saw that you have contributed to dimethyl ether. My impression with this and some related articles is that some editors are trying to use Wikipedia as a blog or crystal ball (see What Wikipedia is not) to sell some green technology that they wished were imminent.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback Smokefoot. I am not sure I understand what you are getting at with respect to selling green technology, with respect to DME or any other article I have made a contribution to.  If this relates to "The same process can be conducted using organic waste or biomass." - which appears in the DME production section, this is not my writing and a sentence that was pre-existing.  Unless I know for a fact that information is wrong, I tend to write around it.  With respect to Ullmanns etc, we all have our favourite sources, and I note that this one of yours.  As you no doubt are aware it is often exhausting to write some of these articles and LAB took me considerable time.  I would be grateful for any additional information you can add there from Ullmanns.  The reason I prefer to quote some references over others is because the information is observable in the public domain, and therefore more easily checked by people who want to verify the authenticity of what I've written.  I write what I know is accurate either from inspections I have carried out or plants I've worked on.  Where this is not the case, I use words such as "it can be imagined", for example.  Anyone is welcome to add or edit anything I've written.  If more references are required, others can add them.  I dont expect to have to do all the word, research and referencing myself.  Most of this stuff I know, I add references so that others can be convinced - articles that are the most easily cross referenced are what I would continue to use.  My initial intention was to help contribute towards more current information (regardless of its "green" or not, which quite frankly I have doubts over at the moemnt because of its impact on food supplies, algae and jatropha plant excepted) and edit chemistry where it was not quite correct.  However, if doubt exists over my intentions (some editors are trying to promote "green" technology) I am very happy to seize from contributing towards any other articles. Wikichem (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you about pushing any agenda, sorry to give that impression.

I am more interested in your disinclination to cite authoritative sources. It just seems a shame that your insights would not be supported with a few references. You are correct that Ullmann's is indeed one of my favorites and it is not widely accessible unless one is in large institution, but Ullmann's has the huge advantage of being authoritative whereas reports from chemsystems.com lack authority (and usually are removed as spam) and such websites tend to be ephemeral. You as author are obviously in the best position to add the references. Lacking some sprinkling of authoritative references, edits tend to be eroded because other editors will assume that prose without reference is incorrect. The chem pages here often get contributions from cranks (as well as good, virtuous people like you and me!). These cranks often are "writing what they know" or are intent to give Wikipedia the low-down on how "it really is because I've been there." Well in any case, I cant change your DNA and the main thing is to thank you for contributing, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to write back Smokefoot. For new and emerging technology the best references are the original sources, i.e. patents, research journals and releases by producers/manufacturers.  These are unquestionably the most authoritative.  All books, reviews (Ullmanns, Kirk-Othmer, ChemSystems) and news releases, if they are worthwhile will be heavily laced with references from these original sources.  In that regard, you are correct to rate Ullmann's highly, as are Kirk-Othmer's and ChemSystems.  I am surprised that you single out ChemSystems as not being authorittaive, we pay a very large annual subscription to access their reports, and I can assure you, on the technology and economics side, they are well sourced,  referenced and accurate (judging by feedback from producers).  It is our primary start point before inspections of facilities with new/emerging technology.  Ullmanns are equally as good in writing about technology, and this is probably because all three of these companies use experienced engineers with plant experience to compile their reports.  ChemSystems reports are updates on technology developments and therefore are more pertinent in supporting what I am interested in writing about (new/emerging developments). I'll compromise with you, when I am writing about mature technology, I will pool from a greater reference source including Ullmanns since Ullmanns are partciularly strong in their writing about mature technology.  In some cases, an Ullmanns update coincides with the emergence of new technology and in such cases, I will reference them as well (although only people like you would be able to verify the authenticity because Ullmanns reports, not even any significant portions of their abstracts are viewable for free). Kind regards, Wikichem (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a guideline that influences my comments: WP:SECONDARY. The basic message (to me) is that Wikipedia prefers secondary or tertiary sources that have undergone additional review and digestion.  Reports, websites, patents, and even journal articles are considered less desirable sources. My institution pays large fees to these sources - but that consideration is irrelevant to Wikipedia's idea of being an encyclopedia, vs being a blog,  which many editors badly want Wikipedia to be.   Most of technologies in Wikipedia are mature and hence the highly digested content (e.g. Ullmann's) is exactly appropriate. And there is a desperate need for editors to write about such stuff because most of the world runs on mature technologies (the US is but a fraction of Wikipedia's readership). So, you and I don't define "authoritative," Wikipedia has done that through an extended set of guidelines. Anyway, it's semi-anarchic here.  On a related subject, I am sorry that you aren't going to bother to cite refs for your article.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You are correct, they prefer secondary sources or tertiary sources, I hadn't realised that. In which case, I will as much as possible cite from these secondary sources: Ullmanns, ChemSystems, Kirk-Othmer and to a lesser extent, books. I understand what you mean about most of the world utilising mature technology, its just that its mostly boring for me, I am not so motivated to write about them, which is why LAB took me so long to do, even though I did not write much. I will add some more references to LAB, but it will not be until a week or two when I get the time. Thanks very much for taking the time to share your thoughts, and extensive understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. I think they are lucky to have people such as you! Wikichem (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)