User talk:GPieczenik

old comments

Welcome!

Hello, GPieczenik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Phage display have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Staticd (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Phage display has been reverted.
Your edit here to Phage display was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/04-1477/04-1477-2011-03-27.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phage display

Wikipedia has certain policies. Please read this post carefully.

all claims in wikipedia articles must be verifiable (see WP:V ) from reliable sources ( WP:RS ). any unsourced claims can and will be promptly removed if they are challenged. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
wikipedia discourages people making edits about themselves. Read our guidelines on conflict of interest (WP:COI). If you are not sure about the neutrality of your edits, put up your issues on the talk page of the article.Talk:Phage display).

Please take the time to learn a little bit about due process at wikipedia (not re-adding material that was challenged and removed but instead discussing it on the talk page) and about basic wiki syntax (from the rest of the page, e.g. where to use a [ exter nal link] and [[internal wikipedia titles]], adding <ref>reference footnotes</ref> etc.)

Here are the reasons for reverting your edits. DONOT add them back without proper references.

"Phage Display was originally invented by Prof George Pieczenik in 1983 [[1]] and explained privately to Vidal de La Cruz at the NIH, who told George Smith in 1985"

what is this based on? please provide a reference for each of the following

the claim of invention (your name comes nowhere in the early literature of phage display , google scholar searches of "pieczenik phage display" return no relevant results) the patent you mentioned in a previous edit (us patent 5866363) was not filed till 1991 according to Google patents.
the private communication to de La Cruz (anybody can claim to have told edison how to make a light bulb. It appears in wikipedia only if it has references.)
the private communication to Smith

"This technology was further developed by Prof. George Pieczenik [[2]] at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology"

Again what is the reference for this claim (Baring your own web page). None of the early papers on using phage display for antibodies mention you. (again, As far as I can tell)

"The invention of antibody phage display by laboratories by Prof. George Pieczenik at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology and reduced to practice by Greg Winter and...

Again, give a reference.

If you have references, please put them here Talk:Phage display#Pieczenik patent litigation.

Good luck.Staticd (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Frederick Sanger. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tgeairn (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your latest edits to phage display

please read my last post carefully
DONOT make personal attacks on editors (see policy WP:NPA ) or threaten legal action (WP:NLT). You are being challenged not because pharma companies are paying editors, but because your edits violate many policies.
Yes, you may be the true inventor. Till you are acknowledged as such by reliable sources, you can't claim to be the inventor on wikipedia(as pointed out in the previous post). I may not get patent law but I am willing to learn if you will explain.
reasons for reverting your edits, put your arguments here
Please try to learn some wiki syntax (as pointed out in the previous post). i.e. How to add a reference as a foot note, how to add external links (using single square brackets).

Editing at wikipedia

I think we went over this. Clearly you do not understand what a patent continuation in part is about. It states the date of the first filing and then all the following continuations. The disclosure document is a certified USPTO document that is evidence in any court in the world and has more validity than any publication like a review. Please learn something about patent law before you make foolish comments on patent priority. Also, if you notice the MRC Lab of Molecular biologies citation to Pieczenik's work you will notice that is also a statement which you removed because of claimed "copyright" infringment. So if you are following legalities in any sense you have to accept patent priority. That is what patents are for..to open your chest so other may profit but must acknowledge. Unless you are working for a pharmaceutical company I cannot understand your reasoning. Best and Good Luck, I have supported Wiki in its political fights and contributed financially, but if it continues to just make up information and support pharma, then I will ban any information from Wiki in my classes. The noise level is Wiki is very high now, as more and more people contribute without any substantive knowledge. This is particularly dangerous when you are giving advice on science, medicine and medications. When you have an editor who has published with three Nobel laureates such as Prof Pieczenik then perhaps you can truely edit molecular biology, but he is unique and the only one. Best, Prof. George Pieczenik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.226.196 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Prof. Pieczenik,

I apologize for the misunderstandings. Thank you for taking the time to edit wikipedia. Also, thanks for any support (moral and financial) you may have given.

I freely admit that I am no expert in patent law. You very well may be the inventor of the technique, but please humor me and let wikipedia policy be followed when we add it to the article. (please read the WP:BRD guidelines) Basically gist of the policy is - "Editors are advised to Boldly add material, if it is challenged it is reverted by someone else, they then discuss it on the talk page of the article. The article is edited again only after a consensus is reached (see WP:consensus). Under no circumstances must an edit war (WP:EW) take place with editors reverting each others reverts"

I looked but could not find the link you mentioned that was removed for copyright issues, could you put it into the talk page of the article here[3]

I believe it is safe to surmise that the reason you support wikipedia is because it is dedicated to free, good quality knowledge. When wikipedia is manned by an army of volunteers, it is important that edits made without substantiative knowledge or worse, with malicious intent don't get incorporated. ("people contribute without any substantive knowledge. This is particularly dangerous when you are giving advice on science, medicine and medications.")For this reason, all facts that can be challenged must be referenced (see the WP:RS and WP:V policies). We do get a lot of malicious editors and out right impersonators (e.g. User:GeorgeBush User:Obama) so please forgive our suspicion (nothing personal) about new facts. (we have to assume the data is bad until referenced otherwise) If it were not for this wikipedia will be swamped by spam and vandalism.

I do get how USPTO disclosure documents work(a partial, confidential filing upto 2 years in advance of full filing). However the reason I was not convinced enough to go with the claim was (a) the only copy of the disclosure document I could find was on your personal page, the USPTO has not mentioned it nor have they archived it publically. (b) field literature makes no mention of you. The earliest dates I could get from an independent source are the USPTO site and the science paper. Please do help me out here in getting an independent verification for the date. Please post at your talk page (here) or the article talk page.

Once we sort out the references for your priority, there are other issues to the edits you made which need to be worked on before they can be accepted. (around 16 other content issues, 8 for which i have provided detailed notes on the talk page of the article).

please do read the previous posts I made again. Both regarding policy and syntax. It will help prevent misunderstanding.

Making legal threats[4], threats of banning wikipedia in your classes[5], calling people pharma stooges and retards[6][7][8], not heeding anything that was previously posted on wiki syntax or on policy is not very nice. Especially as you have an interest in the topic, this sort of response is downright hurtful for volunteers just trying to build a better encyclopedia (no vested interest, just goodwill).

I again apologize for any hurt feelings, please do discuss the issues on the article talk page.[9]

Staticd (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Phage display shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tgeairn (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I came here as part of an investigation into edit-warring, [10] this has led me to require to block you under our policy on legal threats. It would appear that due to your conflict of interest, you are unable to edit certain articles objectively. We cannot ignore such threats on the project, whether you're right or wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]