User talk:ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov

February 2020
Hello, I'm Mr Xaero. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Tgeorgescu have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mr Xaero  ☎️ 00:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

FAQs
There is always a possibility that you are a genuine researcher who is "part of a research team at Carnegie Mellon University ... building tools to help create FAQs for the millions of Wikipedia pages that don't have them". Accordingly, let me suggest that you spend a bit of time getting accustomed to editing Wikipedia. After that, you could ask about FAQ pages at WP:Teahouse or possibly WP:MISC. In short, FAQs will not be added to thousands let alone millions of unFAQed pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the direction, Johnuniq. --ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

They are indeed added on a case-by-case basis when needed (i.e. persistent questions or misconceptions posted on the talk page again and again). — Paleo Neonate  – 05:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We'd like to get in touch with editors that have gone through the process of identifying these questions case-by-case and created FAQ sections that address them. --ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Nitazoxanide
Hello, thank you for your edits. I noticed that you added nitazoxanide to the table in this article COVID-19 drug repurposing research. I checked the source and my interpretation was that the source found it to be effective in vitro at inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 at a low concentration (the authors went on to recommend further in vivo testing), but yet you added an x to indicate that no significant antiviral properties were found. Either I am misinterpreting the source or you are? What is your interpretation of the source?-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  12:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looked it over, you're right. Thanks for taking a look over and changing. Maybe at some point we should add that its 'Selectivity Index' (SI) set it apart from the other two drugs in the study. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, yes I noticed the selectivity index not being as favourable as remdesivir and chloroquine. I am no expert but my understanding is that nitazoxanide is considered to be quite a safe drug with a benign side effect profile so I am somewhat surprised that it’s selectivity index was worse than chloroquine but I am not an expert in selectivity indexes. But we could perhaps mention the selectivity index or else just leave it until better research comes out. I imagine some doctors will start studies of nitazoxanide in COVID-19 patients soon, maybe in India and South America where the drug is widely prescribed.-- Literaturegeek  |  T@1k?  23:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)