User talk:PeaceRock

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tanox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BCR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omalizumab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

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.

Antibody microarray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to HLA and CD3

Microarray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Illumina

Tanox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CD3

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, PeaceRock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Omalizumab have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Scray (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that no one welcomed you earlier, and hope that the links above will be helpful. I also want to highlight the original research policy, in that some of your edits reflect your interpretation of a sequence of well-documented events - which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We are not permitted to interpret history, rather we must neutrally reflect history as it is described in reliable sources. If you cannot find such interpretation, then we cannot include it in this encyclopedia. The links I've embedded here and above are very useful and important - please review them, and the policy on edit warring. -- Scray (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer by PeaceRock, round 1: I thank you for your prompt notice to my edit made on June 29, 2013. Yes, I understand your comments. I have now revised the earlier edit to avoid being subjunctive or assumptive and hence to conform to the requirement of verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceRock (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 July 2013

Thanks for your contributions to the article and your very positive response. You have toned it down, and I deeply appreciate how you're trying to adhere to our sourcing guidelines but we aren't quite there yet. I've provided a specific example of the problem on that talk page, which I think will help you see what I mean. Cheers! -- Scray (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer by PeaceRock, round 2: Thank you for your continual guidance in editing the statements. I have now provided a full explanation on the consideration of the filing dates and in-force periods of the anti-IgE patents of Tanox and of Genentech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceRock (talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 July 2013

Please engage in the discussion on the article's Talk page (and sign your Talk page comments here and there, using "~~~~", per WP:Talk). You still have not addressed the problem I've tried to explain on that talk page, i.e. please consider who did the "judging" of which the article speaks? My impression is that this is your analysis of events, because you have not provided a secondary source that makes these statements. Regardless of whether this analysis is accurate, it represents original research in its current form and should be removed. Of course, if you simply add a reliable source appropriately supporting these statements, they can stand. -- Scray (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer by PeaceRock, round 3: I understand the problem with the word "judging". I am only stating the hard facts regarding the patents. Thus, I have changed the words "judging from" to "as revealed by". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceRock (talk • contribs) 13:30, 1 July 2013

You've just described original research (and you're still not signing your posts) as I've pointed out twice now. Are you ignoring me on purpose, or am I still not clear? -- Scray (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To try using signature: Thank you for your patience. I am not ignoring you about your advice to use signature - I simply do not understand, but will try this time using the command below in the tool bar (is it that simple?). For the comment in omalizumab, I am stuck, because I have made a statement, which everybody in the field will agree. The facts regarding the patents back up my statement. However, I cannot cite a source of such a statement. PeaceRock (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - the commands are confusing but they will become second-nature (I hope you will continue your contributions here at WP!). Your signature worked - so feel free to keep using that button when signing a Talk page comment; you can also just type four tilde ('~') characters like this: "~~~~" and you'll get the same thing (a signature including a time stamp). Regarding your content statement - I have found myself in exactly the same quandary. I also am a scientist, and I know things are common knowledge among experts, but I've learned that that is not enough; I must find a good reference before I can add it to WP. It took me awhile to accept and adopt this rule, but I've found it serves the encyclopedia very well when editors arrive whose motives are ... not as noble. -- Scray (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An affirmative statement vs a query: How about converting an affirmative statement to a question? As you have said, the statement "The choosing of omalizumab for the joint program seems to be a logical decision" is problematic. May I convert it to "It is not known whether the choosing of omalizumab had also taken considerations of the anti-IgE patents"? I then provide facts about the patents.PeaceRock (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a reliable source for the question. Same issue. -- Scray (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that interesting facts are kept out: Thanks for the instruction. I will try to find a reliable source for the statement, but probably cannot find one. It's a pity, because readers would be interested to know about the comparative merits of the anti-IgE patents between those for TNX-901 and those for omalizumab.PeaceRock (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is one of the 5 pillars of WP (as noted in the welcome, above); therefore, without a reliable source it's not a fact (from a WP point of view, which is the only one that matters here). As I said before, this was a hard lesson for me to learn when I arrived, because in my work life I do research for a living - so editing WP is a very different exercise. -- Scray (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just bringing out the facts: Again, thanks for the instruction and I am learning. Can I say "It is interesting to note the priority dates and in-force periods of the anti-IgE patents"? I am not making or suggesting whether the decision of choosing omalizumab is good or not. I simply bring out the facts about the patents, which are backed by exact citations.PeaceRock (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this horse is really dead and you should stop whipping it. The patents are reliable sources for what they contain. Other uses of them that you find interesting are original research. Let this drop, please, and use this wonderful energy for something that is notable and verifiable. -- Scray (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facts in nude: For an article on omalizumab, which is at the very front of biomedicine, facts about the patents are important part, which should be in the Wikipedia. May I say the following? "It is noted that the family of the anti-IgE patents of Tanox have a priority date of December 31, 1987, and the anti-IgE patents of Genentech have a priority date of August 14, 1991, and that a key Genentech's patent on protein formulation, which covers omalizumab, has a filing date of March 14, 1996 and will expire on June 20, 2017 in the U.S. with the allowance of extension. Is such a statement of facts in nude "original research"?PeaceRock (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is noted by you/me/WP, then no. If it is noted by a reliable source, please identify that source so it can be verified. -- Scray (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The horse is dead: Okay! My salute to you for your diligence. You do not seem to sleep. WP has been a good source of information, because people like you. I will make additional donations to WP in the future.PeaceRock (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Please don't be discouraged - you have much to offer as a Wikipedia editor, and I look forward to future interactions! -- Scray (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: Wishing you much happiness and satisfaction in your professional and personal lives!PeaceRock (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for contributing to the article on Omalizumab. Please check that article's talk page for some feedback on your work. I appreciate the contributions which you have made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines! Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bluerasberry,

Thanks for your "cup of coffee" and for sharing your personal background. Your passion for Wikipedia and service/contribution to the biomedical community is most admirable. Your professional life and personal interests seem to merge perfectly well. I know very little about the various commands in writing and editing in Wikipedia and hope to learn more in the future. PeaceRock (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)PeaceRock (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]