User talk:Maurice.terry

COI
Just curious why as an inexperienced editor, you removed the [{WP:COI]] label on Twibanire Esterification? Hopeully you also are not subject to the same conflict of interest? To me, the article is not noteworthy - it was published in a specialized journal (see WP:SECONDARY) and it is recent (see WP:RECENTISM). But perhaps you have alternative perspectives, which you are encouraged to share. Notice also that none of the editors have a user page, a reasonably good indicator of COI. So, do not be offended if I reattach the COI tag. Thanks and best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am new and not familiar with editing yet. However, I understand esterification quite a bit. I did not even notice that I deleted something. My apologies Smookefoot! I have gone to scifinder and read more about this kind of esterification. There possibly could be a COI, however, I disagree on the work itself. I think it is noteworthy. I noticed through scifinder that the article was also reproduced by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheimohn in the weekly Cheminform Abstracts. Maurice.terry (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)]
 * ChemInform simply reviews and digest a vast number of reports - it is not a peer reviewed process. Did you find in Scifinder others referring to this paper?  Tens of thousands of papers are published annually.why this collection?  The case for WP:COI is plausible.  Amazing how new editors appeared just to come to the defense of this paper. Oh well, mediocrity happens. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)