And thanks for your attention to the issues with mupirocin. I've made a few corrections to the chemical structure and associated data that I think further address the problems. But since there is clearly incorrect data out there (at PubChem, for example), it would be nice if I could be double-checked. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am directly involved with the Open PHACTS project as one of the Work Package leaders. I am working to connect the Open PHACTS project, a major European Initiative regarding Open Pharmaceutical Science, across the relevant articles on Wikipedia and welcome any feedback.

The article Gary E. Martin has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bazj (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of references to Gary Martin's article. Please check it out and let me know whether more is required. Thanks --ChemConnector (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemConnector. You have new messages at Bazj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some reliable sources are needed. There is one (the blog) which is OK but not strong enough. Widefox (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemConnector. You have new messages at Widefox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have added a Mendeley external link. I have also linked two articles into the page...that of NMR and ANtony John Williams. More references will be added. The external link to his photogrpahy website has been removed. --ChemConnector (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Open PHACTS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.

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. Crusio (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemConnector, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open PHACTS whether the article Open PHACTS should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Open PHACTS, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Crusio (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely to me that this article will be deleted. "Notability" is the wiki-jargon for "qualifies for its own, separate, stand-alone article". However, "not notable" does not necessarily mean that zero information about it is permitted anywhere on the English Wikipedia. You might consider, for example, whether a brief summary of Open PHACTS could be incorporated into the rather short article about the funding agency. One or two paragraphs about this project might improve the other article by showing something that the funding agency is doing.

You might get other ideas about how to do this by reading the advice on notability for organizations and this FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you could list the different accounts you use? Thanks Widefox (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I only have one account now...as ChemConnector. That's the only one I log in with. THe only other possible account is when I forget to login as I did when I edited the ranitidine article earlier this week but I did comment on that. --ChemConnector (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is the account User:Rsc.kidd your account, or someone you know? The pattern of editing is very similar, and based on the username, this editor also has a COI with the topics as you do. The editor has a specific interest in Chemspider, your topic! You might know that editor right, can you explain? Probably best for you to disclose all accounts you have used on your userpage or something in the spirit of openness. Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Widefox (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT have the account RSC.Kidd. it is not my account. I have read Sock Puppetry. I also read about it in the Wikipedia Revolution. I know who the editor is however as he is a colleague at RSC and I will inform him of your concerns. Thanks --ChemConnector (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sean Ekins 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) 08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemConnector, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Gerhard Ecker, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Widefox (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemConnector, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, IChemLabs, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Widefox (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very happy about the message you left on my talk page. I quote from the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool." . A heads-up I'm just going to nominate Gary E. Martin for deletion. All of these articles can be saved or recreated with notable references. Notability is the way forward, OK? If you need help with that just ask, OK? Widefox (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've upset you. There was no sarcasm in my statements but I acknowledge you interpreted it that way. There was no personal attack on you. I am simply acknowledging that I have chosen, for the time being, to no longer contribute. Thanks for the opportunity. --ChemConnector (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what I remain undure of is what is a "notable reference". The references I inserted there are all from top-level peer-reviewed scientific journals and, in my opinion, notable. If they need to be highly cited then I would need to know what highly-cited means...how many citations? Is it 50 or 500? In his field Gary Martin is one of the best known NMR spectroscopists with over 300 publications. I could have certainly removed all of the comments about the photography etc. No sarcasm meant, no personal attack intended. Thanks for the feedback.--ChemConnector (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I marked on each of these articles the exact guideline for notability, so for this article WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) spells it out. The main point being WP:SECONDARY sources. e.g. A NYT/BBC/other-reliable-source article on IChemLabs. Widefox (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary E. Martin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary E. Martin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Widefox (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gerhard Ecker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Ecker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Widefox (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==

Rsc.kidd

Hi, i think you might be able to help me here. Is polypharmacology an alternative name for polypharmacy? If so it might make a useful redirect. Thanks, benzband (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of Antony Williams 2011.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've rec'd an OTRS inquiry about removing the promotional tag from this p. I suggested 1/adding more 3rd party refs, specifying the pt of the review that applies, condensing the description of the products, eliminating words like "solution". Perhaps you could take care of this. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at CompTox Chemicals Dashboard instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is more complete than the article, and should be merged into the article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:CompTox Chemicals Dashboard and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemConnector! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:CompTox Chemicals Dashboard. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread our conversation on Chembox#ChemConnector_Returning_to_Wikipedia_after_a_hiatus_-_Chemistry_Curation_AGAIN_and_suggestion_to_add_DTXSID_to_ChemBoxes. (April 2019) which resulted in adding |DTXSID= and Wikidata reading etc. to {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}}.

I wonder: did it work out well? could you curate this data? Working well with Wikidata people? -DePiep (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ChemSpider Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Vitaium (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]