User talk:MonheitLaw

COI

I hope you realise that you might not be the best person to write about Trasylol, given your evident conflict of interest. JFW | T@lk 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. Of course. But I am quite qualified to discuss the litigation that has emerged surrounding this drug. Which is certainly now a part of the history of what has taken place with Trasylol and would be of great interest to anyone who has suffered kidney failure secondary to the administration of Trasylol. MonheitLaw (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also very qualified to write on subjects of my scientific interest, which would enable me to cite my own publications and engage in self-promotion. That doesn't mean that the COI policy allows it. You are free to leave a note on Talk:Aprotinin that outlines the relevant sources, so an editor without a personal stake in aprotinin litigation can make the relevant modifications to the article.

There are plenty of drug articles on Wikipedia where ongoing litigation is not being discussed. There is not much of a precedent. I will drop a note on WP:PHARM, the forum for drug-related articles, to see what other editors think. JFW | T@lk 16:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to precedent, see: Rofecoxib#Litigation (MonheitLaw (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I will put together a list of resources for someone to consider. The fact that the drug manufacturer moved to have all Trasylol litigation consolidated is significant, as all of these cases filed in Federal, like what you saw with Vioxx, will be consolidated in front of one judge. Again, thank you for the suggestion. (MonheitLaw (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hopefully the resources I listed will be sufficient for someone to describe the MDL litigation for recourse sought by those who have taken Trasylol. See: Talk:Aprotinin (MonheitLaw (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:Michael-square.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael-square.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I did this correctly. My firm (Anapol Schwartz and Monheit LAw) own this image and I have permission to use this. It is a picture of me. (MonheitLaw (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]