User talk:Bradkeely

Welcome!

Hello, Bradkeely, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Old-rosie-2L-vlg.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Old-rosie-2L-vlg.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Cider Old-rosie-660ml-vlg.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cider Old-rosie-660ml-vlg.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Old rosie box.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Old rosie box.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Chest5.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Chest5.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 00:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Chest1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Chest1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 00:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Chesterton hall 1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Chesterton hall 1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Chesterton hall 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Chesterton hall 2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 01:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Mill 000205.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mill 000205.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Angiosplice

I have nominated Angiosplice, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angiosplice. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Keely, it appears you are not completely aware of what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. It is an encyclopedia, and its most basic guideline is "verifiability, not truth." As it happens (and feel free to check), the Claw Boys Claw and chicken fried bacon have all been written about in what in Wikipedia is referred to as reliable sources--as have Gautier le Leu and the Lexikon des Mittelalters (I appreciate the interest in my work). Angiosplice has not. And there are no peer-reviewed academic journals that have written about Angiosplice: I am sure you can tell the difference between VEGF-A and a company making the stuff. Now, that they want to cure cancer and all, that's great, but it's not encyclopedic and it's not even verifiable--surely you understand that even the Britannica couldn't just take your word for it. (BTW, I am sure that as a company they are interested in making money--even academics know that.)

Incidentally, I'll be happy to put my doctoral degree up against yours in a duel--surely, as a gentleman, you will let me choose the weapon. How about medieval poetry in the vernacular European languages? Drudge has never written about that, I guarantee you. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Keely, as I've said at the AFD, I share your unhappiness with the nomination, but User:Drmies is right: as things stand now, Angiosplice qua a company appears to be non-notable. I'm writing to help clarify something that might help salvage the article: although you adduced seven links at AFD, all of them appeared to address the therapy that you're developing, not the company that's developing it. That's a problem, because the article is about the company, not the therapy. The relevant notability guideline (WP:COMPANY) requires that the subject of the article - i.e. Angiosplice, not anti-angiogenic isoforms of VEGF-A - "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources [that are] ... reliable, and independent of the subject." In other words, you need to added articles about the company to the article for it to survive. If you know of any and would add them, even if they aren't online, I would be happy to change my vote.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Simon and Drmies, I greatly appreciate your time for feedback, I appear to have misunderstood the role of wiki, it appears we measure achievement with a different stick. Drmies I'm sorry for any sarcasm, it was much more tongue in cheek than malicious. As a starving scientist I get quite emotive on topic, infact I'm rather found of Italian vernacular literature, I have a rather dog eared copy of the devine comedy propping the loo door open. Having Spoken to Dr Chris Rao this morning AngioSplice has avoided courting press releases and infact I got my hand slapped, they were not supportive of having a wiki entry as talks are still progressing with funding bodies and VCs that could be influenced by certain information being released and being readily available in the public domain. Would you suggest creating a page (perhaps sub-page) from VEGF-A on VEGF-Axxx165? Once again thank you and I enjoyed the education bw Brad

- The loo door?? Oh my goodness--I just hope it's not one of the editions that's missing from my collection. And please don't take my duel offer too seriously either--as a young lad, I was once blinded with science. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - fwiw, I have a doctorate in molecular biology (from Berkeley); one of my friends was president of an adventurous biomed startup that almost made it--I give you my wishes for doing better, & if a drug does enter phase II trials, with accompanying publications, get in touch with me how to write the article. DGG (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Chesterton hall 1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Chesterton hall 1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Chesterton hall 2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Chesterton hall 2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]