User talk:John1903

MEDRS
I'm sorry, but biomedical claims on Wikipedia require good quality, reliable, secondary sources. Reports of studies are primary sources and animal studies are not suitable for extrapolating to articles about conditions in humans. Please read the page WP:MEDRS and try to understand the distinctions. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The previous article referred to non-human primates plasma PK as reference. What are you talking about now? I updated the piece with the clinical study that informed the remdesivir FDA label; Just lung PK is inferred from primates, so I can agree with you if you want to take it out. If you refer to quality of citations, they are all top journals, such as nature, so again I'm confused.

So you totally reverted to an old, naive and vague version about this? Citing the monkey as a reference in the first sentence? What is up with you? Lol. This is laughable at best. But hey, feel free to lower Wiki quality then. You should look the content up before reverting to what you are ignorant about. Or you are a bot, that would make more sense.

Instead of appreciating an expert in the field like myself coming here and update stuff. What a waste of my time.
 * It's also a waste of my time, but I don't expect you be bothered by that. Of course I read through all of the sources you added, and I don't appreciate being patronised by your thoughtless assumptions. This is an encyclopedia, not a research journal, and we don't allow biomedical claims to be made on the basis of primary studies such as the ones you used, no matter how good a journal they are published in. As an expert, you ought to be aware that primary studies are often not reproducible, and you should know that results in vitro and in animals often don't translate into the same results in humans. An expert in Wikipedia terms is someone who knows what the best sources are, and you've singularly failed to demonstrate that knowledge. If you're really interested in improving the article, read WP:MEDRS and then use your vaunted expertise to find the secondary sources that could be used to make the improvements. If you're not interested in improving the encyclopedia, then you need to ask yourself what you're doing here. --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also a waste of my time, but I don't expect you be bothered by that. Of course I read through all of the sources you added, and I don't appreciate being patronised by your thoughtless assumptions. This is an encyclopedia, not a research journal, and we don't allow biomedical claims to be made on the basis of primary studies such as the ones you used, no matter how good a journal they are published in. As an expert, you ought to be aware that primary studies are often not reproducible, and you should know that results in vitro and in animals often don't translate into the same results in humans. An expert in Wikipedia terms is someone who knows what the best sources are, and you've singularly failed to demonstrate that knowledge. If you're really interested in improving the article, read WP:MEDRS and then use your vaunted expertise to find the secondary sources that could be used to make the improvements. If you're not interested in improving the encyclopedia, then you need to ask yourself what you're doing here. --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

So you are ignoring the study informing the Remdesivir Label which has been approved by a panel at FDA for COVID19 treatment, but hasn't passed your revision? This is hilariuos - a Wiki volunteer taking such a decision is quite gutsy, I have to say. But, I could try to agree on the second part, where maybe lungs are a bit extrapolated, but still from peer-reviewed sources. Again, you prefer to keep non-primate information about R. PK, where both drug bank and PubChem report the same information I've added here. Comments? https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/121304016#section=Absorption-Distribution-and-Excretion (waiting for you to discredit PubChem)
 * Again, this is an encyclopedia, not an FDA panel. The only funny thing I've seen so far is you telling me that we've been doing it wrong all this time, and that we should be following your lead in using primary sources to substantiate biomedical claims. Well, that's not going to happen. As you seem to have not followed the MEDRS link to see what conventions we have when writing here, I'll reproduce the guidance from WP:MEDRS, then you can't claim you don't understand how this encyclopedia is written
 * Again, this is an encyclopedia, not an FDA panel. The only funny thing I've seen so far is you telling me that we've been doing it wrong all this time, and that we should be following your lead in using primary sources to substantiate biomedical claims. Well, that's not going to happen. As you seem to have not followed the MEDRS link to see what conventions we have when writing here, I'll reproduce the guidance from WP:MEDRS, then you can't claim you don't understand how this encyclopedia is written


 * If there are any concepts in there that you're not familiar with, please feel free to ask for a clarification. It would be helpful to grasp the distinction between "peer-reviewed" and "secondary". Both of those are necessary for a usable source for a biomedical claim, but neither is sufficient alone. No matter how wonderful the peer-review system is for a journal, it still doesn't make a primary study suitable for use in supporting a biomedical claim on Wikipedia.
 * As for PubChem, it's a nice resource, but I'm always a bit wary of any website that uses Wikipedia as one of its sources. Nevertheless, if you want to suggest using that source to improve the article, I'm happy to listen, but I'd suggest making use of something like Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics of Antiviral Agents Used to Treat SARS-CoV-2 and Their Potential Interaction with Drugs and Other Supportive Measures: A Comprehensive Review by the PK/PD of Anti-Infectives Study Group of the European Society of Antimicrobial Agents for the sort of information you're looking at. Compare that with your originally suggestion for a source, Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Remdesivir, An Antiviral for Treatment of COVID-19, in Healthy Subjects, and I hope you can understand how much more useful it is to use a review than a clinical study that is quite limited in its investigation. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. I took the time to read the guideline. It is OK, will see, maybe I'll review this or not; Cheers.

Simone Perazzolo moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Simone Perazzolo, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Simone Perazzolo
Hello, John1903. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Simone Perazzolo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Simone Perazzolo


Hello, John1903. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Simone Perazzolo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:SAAMII Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:SAAMII Logo.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)