User talk:38.104.252.146

Hello 38.104.252.146. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:38.104.252.146. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

just editing for accuracy and completeness. Some companies continue many years after Westphal involvement (ie, Ovascience) while others (ie Verastem, about to get a drug approved; Flex, with w positive phase 2 RCT studies) do not. Also several inaccurate statements -- for Sirtris, GSK and Pfizer have both publicly published that the original NCE from Sirtris are not an artifact, as published in subsequent Nature etc papers, they are true SIRT1 activators -- the academic field is fully aligned on this.