User talk:Natureium: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:39, 22 March 2017

Hello Natureium,

Thank you for your note and your contributions to the Shilatifard Wiki page. Per your suggestion I have previewed the COI guidelines and the contributions I have made. The information, which I have contributed to this page, is presented from a neutral point of view and all have been referenced. No subjective or biased information is present.

However, upon reviewing your edits and contributions, I would suggest that you read Wiki’s guidelines and your own advice as such: “Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC).”

Edits you have made were to delete three awards listed giving the reason that they are “non-notable”. You appear to be injecting your personal opinion.

You deleted the award: *1995-1997: Jane Coffin Childs Postdoctoral Fellow

The Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund has its own Wikipage on which it lists its Current Fellows and its Former Fellows, on which Dr. Ali Shilatifard is listed. If your opinion is correct in that the JCCF award is non-notable, this whole page should be deleted, along with the JCCF award being removed from several other prominent scientists’ Wikipages including Dr. Mike Levine and Dr. Joan Steitz, and others.

You also deleted the following two awards: the Innovation Award from the St. Louis Academy of Science; and the Martin E. and Gertrude G. Walder Award for Research Excellence from the Northwestern University. Upon which grounds do you claim these awards non-notable? They are both established awards, given by established and reputable institutions.

There are many Wikipages of living scientists that are approved and active that follow the same format, list similar awards, and even describe their personal lives and experiences that are much more lengthy.

In regards to your edit of changing “Major Discoveries” to “Published Research,” you gave the reason:

Natureium (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 771463434 by Magnolia007 (talk) not necessarily major. this section is also far too long.)

Again, you appear to be making a personal judgment and injecting your opinion rather than maintaining a neutral point of view. Upon what criteria are you judging that these discoveries are “not necessarily major,” and that “this section is far too long,”? This is your personal opinion. Renaming it to “Published Research” is also inaccurate, because the list is not a complete list of Dr. Shilatifard’s published research. Therefore, your editing is not very well thought out. Major Discoveries seems neutral in that the published manuscripts listed are discoveries recognized by highly respected, peer-reviewed journals. Other major research groups have cited them. It is fair and unbiased to say that they are Dr. Shilatifard’s major discoveries. Many other scientists’ Wiki pages have the subtitle “Major Discoveries”.

The examples of your editing that I provided above demonstrate one of Wiki’s warning of having a COI. You appear to be making edits that are influenced by your personal opinion.

“Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. “

I suggest that you seriously consider your potential COI with this article before making further edits. If you continue to make subjective edits that are unsubstantiated, I will need to report you to a Wiki administrator. (Magnolia007 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, Natureium, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Nomination of Charles J. Sherr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles J. Sherr 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/Charles J. Sherr 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Meatsgains (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Sherr

I've withdrawn my WP:AFD nomination for Charles J. Sherr. Thanks for providing additional references! Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hello Natureium. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santina Muha

You deleted my Santina Muha page for my class project. Put it back or I will not get credit for it. I worked extremely hard on it and it is a huge portion of my overall grade. PLEASE put the page back. Santina Muha shows diversity in media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfgiovanucci (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Jfgiovanucci, Natureium is not an administrator, but like any experienced user, they can recommend pages for deletion. That page should never have been published in Wikipedia article space and consequently was deleted by admin Ad Orientem in compliance of policy. The page was not supported our requirements for asserting notability through WP:Reliable sources. All the sources used are social media or blogs. The article does nottherefore (for the time being anyway) earn a place in our encyclopedia and will therefore not earn you a grade for your course. Experimental pages should be developed in WP:Draft space - perhaps you would like to inform your course manager or teacher. If you would like to recover the content of that article for future use, please ask me or Ad Orientem on our talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Poziotinib) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Poziotinib, Natureium!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Useful article, good work!

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allergan/Naurex

I have removed the merge requests from these two pages, because Allergan is a redirect page and so cannot be merged. If there's a case for a merge, it would be between the actual article pages – Allergan, Plc and Naurex. If you still wish to propose that they be merged, please tag those articles as such and start the merge discussion on one of the corresponding talk pages. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your revert

Natureium, I | saw this revert . I saw the talk page discussion before I reverted. This is a BLP issue, a claim is being made about a living individual without any sources to back it up and the claim is a pretty big deal. Without any sources to back that claim up, WP:BLP calls for it to be removed. I'm going to have to remove the claim about Dr. Oz again as it has no sources to back it up. ƘƟ SĦ

Hi

I think we come from much the same place! We just have somewhat different approaches to what is "encyclopedic". I hope we can find ways to work together - there are not many of us in WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Natureium,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 799 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monoclonals for tumors

Hi! Are you sure about your clinical trials updates to this template? For example, isatuximab is currently in Phase III [1], and labetuzumab has a Phase I/II study recruiting [2], so it's to soon to say it never got to Phase III. I haven't checked all entries, but maybe you could double-check your edit? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was wrong about the isatuximab. The trial statuses I got are from AdisInsight. I asked about what "never to phase III" means in WT:MED, and the consensus seemed to be that it could mean either that the drug was abandoned before it reached phase III or that it was still in development and hadn't reached phase III yet, which is why labetuzumab has a never to phase III indicator. Natureium (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, if it means "not in Phase III yet", I assume Phase III trials for isatuximab hadn't started when you added this information. I would have interpreted the § differently, but if Doc James says so, I won't argue ;-) Thanks for the clarification! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Duntsch

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

Bensci54 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christopher Duntsch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Duntsch 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/Christopher Duntsch 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q

Were does the ref say this person is Dr. Death?[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Natureium,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 799 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E. Mead Johnson Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Armstrong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Priority review (FDA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Janssen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed copy-pasted material from Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act

FYI. In case this wasn't supposed to be done, please share a justification here so we could arrive at a consensus towards the same. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text from government websites is in the public domain. Natureium (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When copying from public domain documents, please include the template {{PD-notice}} with your citation. This provides attribution and alerts our readers (and patrollers) that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Natureium (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]