User talk:Science 2.0

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Science 2.0. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Science 2.0

Please make sure when adding to Science 2.0 it is actually Science 2.0-related and not just jargon or marketing. If you wouldn't try to take over Google or Facebook's page on Wikipedia please don't do it anywhere. Wikipedia is an information source and not a marketing tool.

Science 2.0 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

That edit was done by someone who seemed to want to stress that brand aspect, not me, so it wasn't a conflict of interest, it seemed to be someone who doesn't like brand names. It reads better the old way but I already delete a lot of spam so I didn't want to be heavyhanded, since that other person has a lot more experience. Science 2.0 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Hello, Science 2.0. 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 Science 2.0, 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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia: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.

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. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issue raised at our conflict of interest noticeboard

See WP:COIN#Science 2.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest was by the person who created all that 'websites' stuff and is now proposing to boot Science 2.0 from Science 2.0 and replace the real page with the overseas student-written jargon and links from a year ago. Science 2.0 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you

related in any way to the website Science 2.0 or Ion Publications? Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, along with 5000 other people. Transparency is important in science and it should be in Wikipedia also, thus the username. I hope you are not alleging I have some conflict of interest or am engaged in marketing because I want this to be correct. If so, show your data. The data show my edits have been removing spam links, there was one link to the FAQ of that site and one to the site under examples, so no marketing. The person who took the time to write an entirely new article based on Google searches for the term basically ignored the top two results. It's a well-written article, it's just wrong in a lot of places.