Pharmer8

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mean as custard (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

CPRI

Hi Mean as custard. I am new to Wikipedia and have been trying to make sure that the CPRI page acknowledges all CPRI acronyms. I have entered a new CPRI entry with website multiple times, not as a means of self-promotion but simply providing information with respect to what this center does. All three other entries on the Wikipedia site also refer to other webisites if one follows the link. Thus, if my recent entries are to be removed, it would seem that all of them should be removed. Please advise as to how to correct this. Thank you. Sincerely yours - Pharmer8 Pharmer8 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a disambiguation page, intended to provide links to Wikipedia articles, not indiscriminate links to all four corners of the www. If you write an acceptable Wikipedia article about the centre, then you can add a link to it. . Mean as custard (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pharmer8, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Pharmer8! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Neoglyco summary file 1.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Neoglyco summary file 1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Neoglyco summary file 2.png

Thanks for uploading File:Neoglyco summary file 2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary research and Centrose spamming

Hello Pharmer8, I've just come across some of your edits. You've been asked above not to "spam" a website on multiple pages. This has continued. Please stop.

Furthermore, you have been adding content based on primary research studies. We really try very hard to avoid overemphasising individual studies on Wikipedia, and I would strongly recommend that you read WP:MEDRS, which explains how you can identify strong sources. Please let me know if you need any help. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff, thank you for your guidance. Regarding the Centrose EDC work, I was simply trying to note the newest drug discovery efforts in this area and as none of this work is published other than in the patent literature, the best source of up to date information is on the Centrose website. If you feel this should be removed, I can go back and eliminate my reference to this website.

For the primary citations, the citations were added for statements/topics where no comprehensive authoritative reviews exist to improve the accuracy of the previously established pages on topics for which I'm a scientific expert (I have 20+ years experience in natural product discovery/biosynthesis/enzymology and carbohydrate chemistry). There are many pages relating to natural product discovery/biosynthesis topics that lack accuracy but before I spend any additional time addressing some of these topics I guess I need to better understand what is acceptable Wikipedia content/protocol. If you feel that I should undo some or all of my edits that I spent time on over the last week, please let me know. Thank you again for your time and insight. Pharmer8 (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To attract the attention of another user, simply place {{u|Jfdwolff}} (replace Jfdwolff with another username as needed) somewhere in the discussion, and the site will flag it up.

As for the contributions, I am happy that your motives were quite sincere but we must be selective with the sourcing. The website of a company is fairly weak. Patent literature is only marginally better. Are you absolutely certain that this approach has not been covered in either textbooks or academic journals?

It might be valuable to open a discussion on WT:PHARM, the discussion page of the WikiProject Pharmacology. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff Jfdwolff, thanks for your reply. I am absolutely certain in the case of Centrose EDC work that this new approach has not been covered in textbooks. There is one academic journal article that was recently published on an EDC study but, while on that subject, my understanding is the primary literature (academic journals) is frowned upon as a source unless it is a review article. I find this a bit odd but to better align with Wiki policies, I will try to go back when I have time and re-edit some of my recent entries to remove primary literature citations and will perhaps try not focus so much on the newest advances in a given field for future entries. Thanks again for your willingness to walk me through these things. sincerely, Pharmer8 (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Always happy to help - it took me a while to find my feet on Wikipedia in the beginning. The reason we prefer reviews etc is because primary research studies are often open to interpretation to some extent, e.g. with regards to methodology. Then there's the issue of reproducibility - perhaps bigger than we had previously imagined (see doi:10.1038/483531a). "Amazing new results" also need amazing reproducibility before they can be discussed in an encyclopedia. The restriction on primary sources is not unique to biomedical content; the reliable sources content guideline is quite clear on the general inadvisability of relying on primary sources. Once again, perhaps the folk at WP:PHARM might have some insight; I very recently brought up the problem of sources in drug discovery on that very forum. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Neoglyco summary file 1.gif

The file File:Neoglyco summary file 1.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file redundant to File:TOC graphic.gif

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)