User talk:Burgerhead

Welcome ! 

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Pigsonthewing, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your, a link to this talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. ou can  for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you  put  on.

 Sincerely, Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Burgerhead. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Royal Society of Chemistry, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 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.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Randykitty. Updates to this article were performed as part of a Wikipedia training session and we were advised that it was acceptable to make minor edits as long as we declared conflict of interest on our user page (i.e. my employment at the RSC)? However I am unlikely to edit another RSC page again so my apologies if this was inappropriate. Sorry for mistake with IF year - I was in fact returning to correct this. FYI I added Managing Editor as the previous listed EiC (Philip Earis) was in fact the previous Managing Editor - therefore I was uncertain whether EiC or managing editor should be listed so I put in both. The PCCP People and Contacts webpage in which you indicated the relevant contacts were not listed is in fact out of date and I have requested that this be updated. Additionally on checking (having left training session), Daniella Goldfarb recently stepped down as EiC to be replaced by Seong Keun Kim so I will make this minor change now as it is currently incorrect. With best wishes, Burgerhead (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Burgerhead's employment is declared on their user page in accordance with WMF policy and their edits were made according to both that and local Wikipedia policy. WP:BITE also applies here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with BITE. Suddenly several people connected to this society pop up, some of them making promotional edits and all of them making edits to journals published by their society. Yes, they declared their COI, which is indeed perfect, but there is no way that I or anybnody else could know about any introductory session they got. Putting this COI template, which advices people how to handle this kind of situation does not seem to be bitey to me. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Burgerhead, in principle nothing is wrong with editing articles on which you have a COI, the template is meant to inform editors about the applicable guidelines. Making small corrections, such as the name of the editor-in-chief is no problem, but please remember that our articles have to reflect what the source says, not what you perhaps know to be true. So corrections can be made to WP articles only after they have been made on the website of the journal itself. I really don't intend to scare anyone away, but I specialize in articles on academic journals/publishers and there is often a lot of POV editing going on for such journals and it is a lot of work to keep things encyclopedic and neutral. People working for publishers are a mixed blessing. Some are excellent and will update (or even create) ,articles in an excellent way. But others (I am thinking particularly of a succession of Sage editors) create a mess that sometimes takes years to clean up. Working for this society and in academic publishing, there's a lot you can contribute to WP while steering away from articles in which you have a COI. If you see something that's incorrect (and so confirmed by sources), don't hesitate to drop me a note and I'll make the correction for you. --Randykitty (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem - was just trying to explain the changes (and IF mistake!) I made. As I said I am unlikely to edit further RSC pages as it is not my job to do so - I just picked this page to look at for our workshop as I noticed some details were incorrect - but I fully intend on contributing elsewhere in the chemistry field. :) Will happily pass on details on RSC pages that need changing in future if I spot them. Thank you for the clarification. Burgerhead (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for excellent workshop Andy! Burgerhead (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)