Hi Biobohemia! 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 experienced editors like ChamithN ( talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:SANTAVAC. Thanks! Wikirictor ( talk) 13:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:SANTAVAC may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Biobohemia, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. 

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{ unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{ unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Guy ( Help!) 20:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

LokhovPetr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Requested username:

LokhovPetr ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please select an option from Wikipedia:Changing username and file a request as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Huon ( talk) 16:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:SANTAVAC. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi LokhovPetr. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits to date are promotional with regard to Biobohemia and its products, and indeed your account's username used to be "Biobohemia" (changed here). I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, LokhovPetr. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{ request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. It is fairly obvious that you are working for or on behalf Biobohemia, but we do look for that to be explicitly disclosed. Would you please reply and state your relationship with the company? Once you reply, I can walk you through the rest of the conflict management process here in Wikipedia. Please reply here, just below this note. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 22:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

copied reply here, from its original placement on the article talk page in this diff. Jytdog ( talk) 15:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

COI

LokhovPetr declares that article 'SANTAVAC' is not about LokhovPetr, his family, friends, company, organization or competitors. Article is about antigen composition.

The link related to his company was removed from the page (as well as other links to companies).

LokhovPetr works in Institute of Biomedical Chemistry. This institute is (one time) mentioned in article. To follow conflict of interest the name of institute can be removed from article.

LokhovPetr declares that he does not work in BioBohemia LLC and he currently does not have any official relations with this organization.

LokhovPetr declares that he is participant of described events in article (that is why he can describe SANTAVAC in details). LokhovPetr declares that value of his patents can be affected by publication of article.

LokhovPetr declares that there are not advertisement in article. There are not any links to companies as well as to any products. All information based on published data in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

All references in article are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LokhovPetr ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this reply. What I asked, is that you simply disclose your connection with Biobohemia, so that I can help you with the conflict of interest management proceess, here in Wikipedia, which you do not understand yet. I came here to help you. Please work with me.

I have two sets of questions to complete the disclosure process.

First, you refer to "my "patents". Would you please clarify who originally owned those patents, and how Biobohemia has control of them? (they could have been originally owned by you or owned by the institute, or owned by somebody else; they could be licensed to Biobohemia or assigned to Biobehemia, etc).

Second, would you please explain if you benefit financially some way if Biobohemia is successful, and if so how. You might have equity in the company and/or you might receive royalties (directly or through the institute for example) if the company starts to sell products.

Please reply here. Once the connections are clear, I can explain the next steps to you. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Dear Jytdog!

Thank you for your help!

I am owner of all mentioned in article patents.

BioBohemia and Institute do not have any patents and any licenses.

BioBohemia and Institute were used to conduct research at different stages of SANTAVAC development (as it was mentioned in article).

BioBohemia is an owner of trademark, due to only company can be owner of trademark.

If Biobohemia will be successful by selling SANTAVAC, I will have negotiation with BioBohemia about buying by BioBohemia the license or my Eurasian patent. Currently, as it was declared, I do not work in Biobohemia and I am not owner of BioBohemia.

I can definitely say that I have COI as a patents holder.

The article was made trying not to advertise anyone. SANTAVAC objectively exists, was published, will be further published and promoted to the market (most likely regardless of BioBohemia).

Thanks for replying. There are things that do not make sense here, but in any case, it is clear that in Wikipedia you have:

a financial conflict of interest with regard to SANTAVAC and Biobohemia

a conflict of interest with regard to writing about yourself, your research, and the Institute.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:LokhovPetr - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I have a financial conflict of interest with regard to SANTAVAC and Biobohemia and a conflict of interest with regard to my own research and the institute where I work, Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (Moscow)." would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the company or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I will add the dislcosure to the draft article. Once this is done we can talk about the next steps. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Dear Jytdog! Thank you!

I have added COI to my user page. I am waiting next step. Thank you again.

Thanks for adding the disclosure to your userpage.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes (this is what you are doing, which is great!); and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{ request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "prior review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

You might also find the WP:EXPERT essay very useful, to help you get used to the strange kind of writing we do here. It is nothing like writing a review article - instead we summarize review articles here. I think once you review the stuff at User:Jytdog/How you will see that the draft article about 'SANTAVAC' has a long way to go before it is OK. There should be nothing unsourced, and the content should be based on (summarizing) independent, secondary sources.

I hope that makes sense to you. Happy to discuss if you have any questions. Best regards Jytdog ( talk) 17:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Dear Jytdog! Thank you for information.

COI was provided on user page and 'SANTAVAC' page. As I can understand, it is enough for 'SANTAVAC' article.

If I should additionally provide COI somewhere also, please, clarify where. Thank you for your response in advance.

Additionally, I need clarification regarding your remarks about SANTAVAC article.

Why this page should have long way? If something wrong with article, it can be fixed immediately. SANTAVAC is a very short and very simple article (at least in comparison with scientific paper). All information in article is from peer-reviewed scientific journals, i.e. from reliable secondary sources. Sections 'History', 'Patents' and 'Trademark' are not from the journals, but it is reference data supported by documents. I read Wikipedia rules and article was wrote accordingly.

Thank you for your response!

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lee Vilenski was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The references seem to all be from the same place.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SANTAVAC and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:SANTAVAC, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SANTAVAC and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:SANTAVAC, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 12:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply