User talk:Viraltonic

Oncolytic virus
Hi, I hope I am not giving you edit conflicts while you are working on the page Oncolytic virus. I will leave it alone for a while in case you are still working there. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, there was no conflict, I am just trying to update the clinical research section mainly but will try to tidy up the rest of the page where I see a benefit. Good idea making the new section for combination with existing therapy, its a growing area of research and it was cluttering the possible applications section. Viraltonic (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good work! The page Virotherapy does not seem to be distinguishable as a topic; I suggest it should be slightly merged into oncolytic virus, and mostly moved to RIGVIR; what do you think? – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, the Virotherapy page isn't very good. It could be mostly moved as you suggest and become a brief summary with references to oncolytic virus, viral gene therapy etc. Viraltonic (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits about viral cancer therapies
Hi,

I noticed you've been adding a good deal of material on these newer therapeutics. Thank you.

Because these are medical topics, I wanted to call your attention to the sourcing guidelines for medical articles. I've noticed that some of your edits have lacked sources, or only used primary sources for reference, and this is something we try and avoid. One of the articles you have worked on, talimogene laherparepvec, seems particularly problematic, as the majority of references are from clinicaltrials.gov. This suggests that you may want to review the page on what Wikipedia is not, particularly the section about how WP is not a newspaper.

And although it may or may not be relevant for you, I feel it is a best practice, when working on subject areas that are of substantial recent commercial interest, to review conflict of interest guidelines, or at least check out the brief version of the same.

happy editing!

-- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  00:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Thanks for the input, I am aware that some of the parts about clinical trials are poorly referenced, but as you'll understand there is very little published about clinical trials until they are complete, often clinicaltrials.gov is the only source and it is at least impartial in that it only describes the trial, and doesn't make any claims. Where possible I link to journal articles describing results. talimogene laherparepvec is admittedly a brief and poor quality article, but it is young and I will eventually fill in the more encyclopaedic details, I just happened to begin with the clinical trial section. I have created a few pages for therapies of this class but as the only person currently working on them it might take a while for them all to be up to standard. I created them as a spin-off from the oncolytic virus page where I began with the clinical development section, hence initial interest in clinical trials.


 * I am an independent researcher in this field, purely academic and careful to remain impartial in my editing. I can see how mention of Amgen may have made you feel it was promotional, but I don't think that deserves the removal of the entry in the Experimental cancer treatment and management of cancer pages. Cancer immunotherapy is in similar stages of development and that is there on the management of cancer page, and it mentions a specific product, with no references. Perhaps you would like to rephrase it if you'd rather not mention specific products/companies, I was just trying to illustrate that it is a significant field worthy of inclusion, I linked back to the main oncolytic virus page for the fully referenced article. I'm not sure what was wrong with the paragraph in experimental cancer treatment I could link to some reviews if you'd like, but with the link back to the full article that seems a little redundant.


 * Any further tips would be appreciated, perhaps you'd like to join me in enhancing these pages?
 * Viraltonic (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your offer, though I don't think I have enough time to join you, I already have a rather full plate of in-process wp projects that never seem to get done.
 * If clinicaltrials.gov is the only source for these materials, then my opinion (which I expect would be shared by a number of folks over at the talk page of WikiProject Medicine, where you might find it useful to post questions) is that it should simply not be written about. We have a strong preference for secondary sources, as noted in our reliable source guidelines for medicine, and so when there is insufficient secondary source coverage the appropriate action is not to use lots of primary sources (which would raise red flags for original research) but simply not to write about it. The sections I removed were unsourced. I apologize if any of my tone is in any way confrontational, I do not mean to bite the newbies but it is particularly important to me that medical content be properly sourced. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  02:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're also quite right about the Management of cancer and cancer immunotherapy pages, but rather than being examples to hold up, they are rather both in need of a good cleaning. I can certainly understand why you might think, looking at those pages, that your contributions were in keeping with prevailing norms. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have posted over at WT:MED regarding management of cancer, so I appreciate your suggestions. Might you have an interest in working on this article over the next few weeks with me and perhaps others? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  02:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I could certainly write a well sourced summary of oncolytic viruses! I have knowledge in other areas of cancer treatment too, so I will keep an eye on the page and do what I can. Viraltonic (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Might you be able to comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine? Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oncolytic virus
Great job. I do take a bit of issue putting the still kind of speculative clinical trial results language in the lead paragraph, and I also moved the stuff about Amgen to the clinical trials section, but that's the only really glaring thing i saw. thanks for all your work on this! -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  00:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
thanks for all your work on the viral topics!

[ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  00:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC) 

Replaceable fair use File:Generalised diagram of the cancer specificty of oncolytic viruses.png
Thanks for uploading File:Generalised diagram of the cancer specificty of oncolytic viruses.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rigvir
Hi! I noticed you were helping clean up Rigvir article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIGVIR), and I was wondering if you could have a look at the article now and maybe advise on further improvements. In the past year I tried to clean up the article as well and would like to add some new secondary sources, e.g., http://skepticisms.lv/enciklopedija/rigvir-when-science-takes-a-back-seat/, but as a Wiki newbie I am not certain it would be accepted as a good source. Any thoughts?--KC LV (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)