User talk:Rsc.kidd

InChI Trust

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of InChI Trust, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.inchi-trust.org.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Hello Rsc.kidd. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article ChemSpider, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. and Royal Society of Chemistry.Please could you disclose if you have a COI with RSC Royal Society of Chemistry, as per your name? Do you have any connection with Open PHACTS , ChemSpider? Additionally, do you have a connection with User:ChemConnector? Widefox (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Thanks for your disclosure on my page User talk:Widefox. I don't know if you read the Conflict Of Interest guideline WP:COI, please read "Declaring an interest" and so please make your disclosure on this page, and your User:Rsc.kidd page. You really should read the guideline so you know what is acceptable, you should avoid editing articles like RCS, Chemspider and make proposed changes via their talk pages. I hope that helps, and does not put you off contributing to other articles. Widefox (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read the guidelines, but believe that all contributions follow the 'in a nutshell' spirit and are scrupulously NPOV and factual. Clearly I disagree with notability policy - and emphasise that my username is clearly an explicit declaration of affilitation. Didn't follow the rules though, did I? Rsc.kidd (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand your reasoning - the 'in a nutshell' says not to write about your employer - which you did. Please stop now. I have handed this over to the COI noticeboard. I will now disengage myself from this. The notability policy is central to wikipedia, but you are of course free to take up your disagreement there. Widefox (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says you shouldn't promote your employer. Our interpretation of factual NPOV additions and deletions clearly differs in interpretation of 'promote'. Rsc.kidd (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree some of your edits are OK. You promoted your employer with these edits e.g. [1] (removal of commercial aspect, highlighting free), [2] (adding external link to your own site against WP:EXT WP:WEB). The 'nutshell' says "Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia." I am a neutral editor, these edits do not improve WP, I have reverted them. Reinstating this [3] consensus by neutral editors is building [WP:Articles_for_deletion/Open_PHACTS] that this article you reinstated is promotional. As per nutshell, I encourage you to take this up at WP:COIN. Widefox (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those specifics (genuinely). If we'd started off with this - reversion of controversial edits - I'd be less unhappy at the process. I feel an assumption of bad faith in my edits from the start; if our positions were reversed I would truly struggle to regard myself as remaining a neutral editor several days into a thread. Rsc.kidd (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of InChI Trust

The article InChI Trust has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Widefox (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]