User talk:OzBioMan

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Afucosylated monoclonal antibodies
 * added links pointing to Roche and Isotype


 * Frédéric Triebel
 * added links pointing to Recombinant and Dimeric


 * GSK2831781
 * added links pointing to Complement and Th1


 * IMP321
 * added links pointing to Recombinant and Dimeric


 * Prima BioMed
 * added links pointing to Th1 and Dimeric

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of IMP321 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IMP321 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 Articles for deletion/IMP321 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. Roches (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the IMP321 page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=660147543 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F660147543%7CIMP321%5D%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ursula Wiedermann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recombinant. 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) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viralytics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DAF. 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) 09:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Duplication
Do not insert the same information into two different WP articles. Since we have an article on Triciribine, all we need in the company article is a link to it. Trying to put in the same extensive detailed text twice is an editing technique that looks like promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
As all of your work has been on two pharmaceutical companies, their related people, and  their products, it is  possible that you may have a conflict of interest. If so, please see of WP:COI policy, and also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure  DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=697708001 your edit] to Marlborough, Massachusetts may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The biotechnology company RXi Pharmaceuticals is headquartered in Marlborough.

Need for third-party sources
As the message from User:DGG above points out, your editing has been focused on a small number of interrelated pharma companies, researchers, and entrepreneurs. These articles are all sourced with footnotes to the researchers' own publications, to materials on the companies' own web sites, and republished press releases. None of these are considered independent, third-party sources and therefore cannot be relied upon to establish the notability of the subjects. It is especially important that there be strong third-party sources here, where there is a reasonable concern of a conflict of interest.

If notability cannot be established using high-quality, independent sources, the articles will have to be deleted. Beyond this, it is important to have sources that demonstrate that people in the field other than the companies and the researchers themselves consider their results to be solid.

Thank you, --Macrakis (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I also call your attention to WP:MEDRS. The purpose of that guideline is to require that medical claims be based upon recognized and accepted current knowledge, rather than upon the possibly premature or aberrant claims of individual research articles. Obvious this is difficult with new drugs that have not reached common use, and articles must therefore be very carefully worded. That a claim is made in a published article is not usually sufficient without confirmation, preferably by a recent authoritative review article.


 * I would slightly modify what said about the researcher's own publications: a peer-reviewed article can be cited to establish the fact that it was published, and as a reference to the content in that article.  But it does not serve to demonstrate the notability of the person. For the way citations to peer-reviewed article do work to establish notability of a scientist, see WP:PROF.  DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we disagree here. I said "researchers' own publications... are [not] considered independent, third-party sources and therefore cannot be relied upon to establish the notability of the subjects". --Macrakis (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heat Biologics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BCG. 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) 09:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Heat Biologics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heat Biologics 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 Articles for deletion/Heat Biologics 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.  DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! 220  of  Borg 13:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Hopper (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Hopper (disambiguation) 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 Articles for deletion/Paul Hopper (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Onlk (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)