User talk:20220228obc

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Peptide synthesis‎, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder. I now understand I have made inappropriate linking in Peptide synthesis. However, I would like to change 'SPSS' to 'SPPS', since 'SPSS' spells wrong. Thank you. 20220228obc (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an worthy fix indeed. Good catch! DMacks (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

HATU

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your enthusiasm to contribute. In regards to my changing and reverting some of your edits to HATU, I encourage you to read WP:PRIMARY as to why we prefer to avoid relying too heavily on primary sources (especially in chemistry). Primary sources are tricky because they make it too easy for an editor to place undue weight on any one specific fact or discovery. The truth is, if these findings are worthwhile and impactful, they will be incorporated into secondary sources in due time. In chemistry, given that nearly every peer-reviewed article carries some degree of novelty (especially in academic research), we simply cannot include every novel reaction or outcome until it has earned its worth broadly in the field (e.g., beyond niche academic research).

Chemistry Wikipedia is still mostly a spaghetti mess of half-finished and poorly-written articles. I'd argue that there is more good to be done in polishing articles and removing unnecessary information than by adding more highly technical information from primary sources. Our goal here should to be make information accessible (and understandable) to the widest possible audience (see WP:TECHNICAL). Experts in the field already know where to look for highly specific and technical details (not Wikipedia). Instead, you should consider improving articles to increase accessibility to others (see WP:ONEDOWN).

After some minor revisions, I believe your contributions to HATU are constructive. I hope you will stick around and continue to help us improve Wikipedia.

Best regards,  D_2h⌬ 21:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your message. I will try to edit with the least primary sources but more secondary sources, and write something without too much technical details in the future. 20220228obc (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)