User talk:KambizShekdar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, KambizShekdar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Peter Staley, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (January 30)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing 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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This doesn't really describe the organization much. More verbiage is given to describe what NIAID is doing.
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.
AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, KambizShekdar! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research Foundation to Cure AIDS moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Research Foundation to Cure AIDS, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 30)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eagleash were:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
To create a draft article, please review the guide to article creation and the manual of style. Go via WP:WIZ or WP:AFC to create a draft.
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.
Eagleash (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:KambizShekdar/sandbox has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:KambizShekdar/sandbox. Thanks! Eagleash (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (January 30)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
tone is totally inappropriate
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Research Foundation to Cure AIDS[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Research Foundation to Cure AIDS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Possibly (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Are you not paid or compensated in any way for your role as the president or your organization? 331dot (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (2)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (2), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Possibly (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Possibly (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (2) (January 31)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Davisonio was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing 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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
Craig Davison (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello KambizShekdar! Your additions to Cell engineering have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (2)[edit]

Information icon Hello, KambizShekdar. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (2), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:KambizShekdar/sandbox[edit]

Hello, KambizShekdar. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 09:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Research Foundation to Cure AIDS for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Research Foundation to Cure AIDS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Foundation to Cure AIDS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Foundation to Cure AIDS. Thank you. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue HIV/AIDS activists deleting a page[edit]

Regarding your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Foundation to Cure AIDS Is there any process to ensure that the person or persons who ultimately decide to delete this page have no conflict of interest in this space and no interest in HIV/AIDS advocacy. Please see above.

Simple answer: No, there is not. Though I think most of us don't feel one is necessary. Every action taken on Wikipedia is publicly logged. You're welcome to skim the contributions of whomever closes the discussion by going to Special:Contributions and typing in their username. The folks who close these discussions are largely administrators, who -- while certainly not infallible -- have generally been here a while. If they had an axe to grind on HIV/AIDS advocacy, you'll be able to see it in their contributions. If you did find they had such an axe to grind, improper deletions are brought to Wikipedia:Deletion review for further scrutiny, and improper administrative actions are brought up at WP:ANI also for broader scrutiny. I say all that to let you know that there is process here; things are not decided on the basis of one rogue wacko's opinion. But I've been here for a while, editing mostly in medicine topics, and I've found that the longterm editors and administrators here have stuck around because they believe in the mission of building a high-quality free encyclopedia, and not because they have some topical axe to grind.

If you're wondering why folks at that deletion discussion are responding as if you're acting ridiculous, perhaps you can try to understand things from their point of view. Many of us have been here for years volunteering countless hours to trying to build this encyclopedia. You contributed content to that encyclopedia, and some folks here told you "hey I'm sorry to say that this content doesn't fit within our policies for reasons X and Y." You've responded with big blobs of text, suggesting that the commenters there don't understand what does and doesn't belong in this encyclopedia, or that perhaps they're motivated by sinister ulterior motives. Perhaps instead Wikipedia just isn't exactly what you thought it was, and you're too close to Research Foundation to Cure AIDS to see this situation clearly.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry you're having a negative experience here. We could certainly use more editors interested in helping improve medicine-related content here. But we typically advise folks to avoid editing in topics where they have a close personal or professional connection, as those topics can be hard to contribute productively and level-headedly to. If you have other questions about Wikipedia process or norms, you're welcome to ask here or at WP:TEAHOUSE. Pardon the very long post, but I hope that helps clarify the situation. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User bludgeoning the AfD process. Thank you. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion now happening here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_Admin_Needed:_KambizShekdar Star Mississippi 17:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Foundation to Cure AIDS) for a period of 2 weeks for bludgeoning the discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 17:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have just raised your conflict of interest with the article's subject matter at the above thread. As such, I have also blocked you from the article per our guidelines. Please use the Talk page to make concise edit requests, should they be needed.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

A reporter today published a new report in a biotech / pharma publication focusing on RFTCA's biotechnology. I understand that the page is up for deletion because it is being said that the organization is not noteworthy. Wiki guidelines say that two articles would satisfy this requirement. In addition to the four or five I added to improve the page, as noted in the discussion for deletion, this new article is highly significant.

A link to the article is below. Two key passages are below for ease of reference. The first passage shows that the technology, while newly published, has been in use for 20 years in significant prior research collaborations and partnerships. The fact that the non-profit organization that is the subject of this page has a royalty-free license to use this validated biotechnology in an effort to develop a cure is noteworthy -- I do not believe any other biotechnology has been licensed to a non-profit -- and I think it is a significant new model for medicine. The second passage details RFTCA's use of the technology.

A second comment: I have been 100% transparent and open about all of my affiliations, which are listed in my userbio on wiki, and include the affiliations below. The same standard should be applied to assess the COI of the user who recommended the page be deleted, citing PR tone, and who, when that was corrected, wrote his detailed subject-involved opinion, suggesting that he may have a COI himself. This should, I believe, be considered, especially as the AIDS advocacy space is known to be contentious. A second comment: I have been 100% transparent and open about all of my affiliations, which are listed in my userbio on wiki, and include the affiliations below. The same standard should be applied to assess the COI of the user who recommended the page be deleted, citing PR tone, and who, when that was corrected, wrote his detailed subject-involved opinion, suggesting that he may have a COI himself. This should, I believe, be considered, especially as the AIDS advocay space is known to be contentious.

PASSAGE 1 -- Regarding the technology of RFTCA:

Chromovert has already been used for close to 20 years in drug discovery and other applications. By the time Shekdar graduated from Rockefeller in 2003, he had incorporated a company called Chromocell to get the technology working. That company, where he served as CSO, has raised more than $100 million in funding from large corporate partners who have used its cell lines to discover compounds that affect taste and pain receptors.

PASSAGE 2 -- Regarding the content specifically re RFTCA in the new artilce published Sep 28, 2021:

In 2014, Shekdar also established the Research Foundation to Cure AIDS, which aims to help develop an inexpensive cure for the disease, and Chromocell licensed its technology to RFTCA for AIDS research in 2019.

The foundation's approach is based on editing the CCR5 gene, which encodes a co-receptor the HIV virus uses to enter a cell, in hematopoietic stem cells. Multiple groups are working on disrupting CCR5 and then infusing the engineered stem cells back into the body, Shekdar said, but they tend to produce too few cells that are optimally modified on both chromosomes.

"We are planning to use Chromovert to see if we can piggyback onto these established methods that have generated positive proof of concept in the lab," he noted, adding that Chromovert may be able to increase the efficiency of these existing strategies in order to cure HIV.

The RFTCA submitted two grant applications to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases this September covering in vivo and ex vivo strategies using Chromovert to help develop a cure, he added.

Shekdar hopes the technology's previous success shows that it is a true platform technology. "It means a lot for me to put this out into the research space and make it available for other researchers," he said.

He has stepped down from his role at Chromocell and is mostly engaged with Secondcell Bio and the RFTCA, but he is also working on Chromovert's potential for discovering more about drugs, especially those that affect the central nervous system and brain, and reducing their side effects. Link to the biotech / pharma publications:

https://www.genomeweb.com/business-news/secondcell-bio-hopes-make-creation-cell-lines-easy-building-legos#.YVNau2ZKj6Z

MY FULL TRANSPARENCY AND BIO HAS ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE:

Kambiz Shekdar obtained his Ph.D. at The Rockefeller University, where he invented the novel cell engineering method Chromovert Technology and established several research organizations based on it, including Chromocell Corporation, Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (RFTCA) and Secondcell Bio. 

KambizShekdar (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This lengthy request does not address the reason for the block. Please describe what steps you will take to avoid disrupting the relevant discussion further. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:331dot I would like to be unblocked so that I can share the highly significant publication that was reported in biopharma press today Sepy 28, 2021 regarding Research Foundation to Cure AIDS, the page that is currently up for deletion, and about its newly published technology. I would also like to note all my affiliations as I set up a relatively new company to make the method available to the research community, in case so that there is no hidden interest or agenda. Given the contentious HIV/AIDS advocacy space and the detailed comments on the subject matter made by the person who suggested the page be deleted recently, I would also like to note my request that COI on the part of this individual are considered.

These are the only comments I plan to make because and they are all in response to a new publication and recent comments made in the discussion page shortly after which I was blocked. I do not plan to repeat these comments in any disruptive way.

Thank you, KambizKambizShekdar (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked so that I can share relevant information that was published shortly before and after I was blocked. The only comments I plan to make are all. I do not plan to repeat these comments in any disruptive way. 1) A highly significant and relevant publication was reported in biopharma press today Sept 28, 2021 with a significant passage on Research Foundation to Cure AIDS, the page that is currently up for deletion. The entire rest of the article is about the technology that is the central asset of the organization. 2) I would also like to note all my affiliations as I set up a relatively new company that is also featured in the article to make the technology available to other researchers, so that there is no suggestion whatsoever that I have any hidden interest or agenda. 3) Given the detailed comments on the subject matter of the article made by the person who suggested the page be deleted shortly before I was blocked, I would also like to note my request that COI on the part of this individual advocating for the deletion of the page be considered. KambizShekdar (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The gist of this appeal is that you want to be unblocked in order to continue making the same type of edits that led to your block. You may not be overtly stating such, but it's clear to any admin reviewing this request that this will be the outcome (i.e. the continued bludgeoning of discussions in an area wherein you have a clear conflict of interest). Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


  • Comment from blocking admin: KambizShekdar you're welcome to indicate your affilitations on your user page, which is where they belong. You are not blocked from anywhere besides the article and its deletion discussion. If the content is relevant, an uninvolved editor will add it and weigh in on the topic. I can say with complete certainty that @DGG:has no COI in this area. I cannot think of a single admin (or even editor) on this project that I respect more. Be ware of our guidelines on personal attacks to which you're treading quite close with the repeat COI assertions. Star Mississippi 21:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my request to remove the block on my ability to add new and relevant information to the discussion relating to deleting the page on RFTCA. I regret to hear that you will not remove the block. Thank you also for your personal assurance that the person requesting the page has no COI. I appreciate the work and effort of all editors and admin at Wiki. My point was not to accuse anyone of COI, but to ask about ensuring that not just myself, but everyone, is held to the same standard.

Be aware that if this page is voted to be deleted, especially while I have been blocked from sharing a highly significant article published today in a major biotech / pharma publication, I will be pursuing all available mechanisms on wiki to request a review of this decision to delete the page of the established 501c3 non-profit 501c3 organization with an unprecedented royalty-free license to cellular biotechnology. User talk:Star Mississippi KambizShekdar (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point KambizShekdar. You should not be editing this article at all per our COI guidelines. If the content is judged to have merit, someone who is not affiliated with your organization will add it. While you're welcome to pursue DRV, you have not provided reasons that a potential close is incorrect, which is the only avenue. Consensus is formed by independent editors judgement. "I disagree with the decision" is not a reason under the guidelines. Further, the fact that you created this after it was declined at AfC will likely also come up there and I am going to suggest the page be protected. Star Mississippi 21:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Star Mississippi Please understand that I am not an IT professional. The amount of coding here is more than I have ever done. I saw a note from you that while I was blocked, I could post on my own Talk page here additional comment I might have to share. I did so. I thought I was following your steps and rules. I at no time did anything against the rules. Now I am being told that by making comments here, along the lines of what I thought I was able and advised to do, is somehow also problematic? If you do not wish to hear a peep from me, then please say so. If however I can act on prompts to share additional information I deem relevant for the consideration of whomever will review it, then that is what I will continue to do. KambizShekdar (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to share information here, or make concise edit requests on the article's talk page. However these should be concise and not repeat the same information which you have said throughout the discussion. You've said it, editors disagree, consensus is formed. This is the crux of why you were blocked. You're welcome to pursue DRV if you feel your situation applies. Disagreeing with the closure is not one of those situations though, so it's unlikely consensus would form to overturn a potential delete. Where I do think you are not editing in good faith is when you change the page names and despite a decline clearly telling you it isn't a fit, you create the page anyway. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of your organization until independent sources deem it notable. You'll note I have taken no further action on your unblocks, nor will I as I am involved and want your appeal reviewed b y someone who is not. However, I recommend you not continue to appeal since three separate editors do not think you'll be able to edit the article, AfD constructively. Star Mississippi 22:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ponyo The gist of the reason I want to be unblocked is what I said: I want to provide evidence of a new and signiciated article in a major biopharma publication that focused on RFTCA and its technology, because the page is up for deletion for supposedly not being noteworthy, I understand two articles talking about a subject make it noteworthy, and here is one that is bang on spot. It I am not unblocked, how else can I add the article for consideration? 21:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to sign my name on my last comment and am trying to follow all Wiki rules, so reposting this note and correcting a couple typos:

User:Ponyo The gist of the reason I want to be unblocked is what I said: I want to provide evidence of a new and signiciated article in a major biopharma publication that focused on RFTCA and its technology, because the page is up for deletion for supposedly not being noteworthy, I understand two articles talking about a subject make it noteworthy, and here is one that is bang on spot. If I am not unblocked, how else can I add the article for consideration? 21:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC) KambizShekdar (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


KS, you did not invent the science behind gene editing. the company you work for, is trying to commercialize one particular application of it. If your company succeeds, it will be noticed and written about, and it will be in wikipedia, though probably under the name fo the technique or the eventual pharmaceutical, more than the company which is trying to make use of it. You do not seem to have any perspective about you personal relative contribution. As the article you quote says "
Multiple groups are working on disrupting CCR5 and then infusing the engineered stem cells back into the body, but they tend to produce too few cells that are optimally modified on both chromosomes....We are planning to use Chromovert to see if we can piggyback onto these established methods that have generated positive proof of concept in the lab," he noted, adding that Chromovert may be able to increase the efficiency of these existing strategies in order to cure HIV."

As you say yourself in the publication you quote, multiple groups are working on variants of these methods. Your company thinks it has a particular way of using them. You are" planning to see if it may be able to improve existing strategies " That's a long way from curing AIDS. I hope someone succeeds, and then their work will be covered here. Perhaps it will be your organization, but as the publication says, it is still trying to raise grant money to explore the possibiltles. If it succeeds, there are about 100 knowledgeable editors who will certainly know of its success, and we will have no bias against it despite your ill-conceived misuse of wikipedia for advertising. One of the regular volunteer editors, not you nor anyone connected with the organization, will write our article.

You have brought the publication to our attention. I've worked with many hundreds of WP articles or proposed articles on all sorts of companies, biotech and otherwise, and I have seen thousands of such publications. It seems exactly the sort of publication which is basically a promotional press release disguised as an interview that we do not consider a reliable source. (as explained in WP:NCORP, which I helped to get adopted.)

You are now trying to use your talk page to promote your company with unreliable sources consisting of your own interviews. I could block you from your talk page also, and I suggest an indefinite block from all of WP-- but some other admin should do it. It's not just to protect us, but to protect your organization from having its reputation further damaged here than you have already managed to accomplish. We try to prevent harm to our subjects. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki guidelines say that a page is notable if at least two sources write about it. I provided two sources, one in a New York newspaper and one in a Swiss news magazine, showing international recognition. The editor said these pieces only had a few paragraphs on the topic. Not true, but in response I provided four additional reports by other publications and yesterday a report in a major biotech / pharma publication came out, which this editor calls a fluff piece. I am also being threatened of being blocked completely for making my points. KambizShekdar (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion[edit]

Hi KambizShekdar. May I suggest you move your new section? By placing it between two older ones it's likely to be overlooked and you seem to want input. I'm happy to move it if you don't know how. Star Mississippi 02:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Star Mississippi Thank you for your message. I appreciate it and trust your input and suggestions completely. In your case I am totally fine with you editing anything including on my Talk page and would appreciate your moving my comment as I don't know how to. Thanks for your help.

Unrelated, I think you said I changed the page name. If that happened it was an accident. I don't think I changed the page name for the current page under consideration for deletion. Maybe about a year ago, I first tried to put a page up on the same topic. I can't remember what the version of the name I used that time around was, and perhaps that is what you are referring to? In any case, that was my first attempt in Wiki trying to add a page, and I agree and I agree that in that instance, it was too promotional in tone for Wiki. This time around, I honestly did my best to write a piece to evidence the basic facts of the org without at all trying to be promotional. All of my comments are genuine attempts at getting this right.

Thanks again KambizShekdar (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Any Info Re Unfair Page Deletion?[edit]

Hello Wiki World. Has anyone out there experienced deletion of their Wiki page where the process seemed unfair to you? I am questioning the process being used to disappear the page for Research Foundation to Cure AIDS. I am all for free and full information, full disclosure of COIs and all the rest of it, but some aspects of this process seem bizarre to me, especially for people who do not understand the ins and outs of Wiki rules and policies and the computer coding needed to be able to make their points for a fair and complete hearing. If you have an example of a page that was deleted improperly, I would like to hear from you. Also, is there an online forum or discussion page anywhere where I could share my experience? I have already been blocked from adding to the discussion regarding the deletion of the page I put up, and some of the comments here make me fear that even asking questions is an unwelcome action that will lead to swift blocking of my account altogether. I trust wiki and in all the volunteers who want to ensure that this page stays public, safe and free, and I hope it is no harm in me sharing my questions about the fairness and validity of the process here, including the possibility that it can in some instances be abused. KambizShekdar (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am an impartial editor, help desk volunteer, and 12 year contributor. I reviewed Research Foundation to Cure AIDS with a completely open mind. The sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The sources include several articles you wrote yourself, which do not demonstrate notability of the organization, due to your COI. Several of the sources are about general efforts to cure AIDS, but they are not specifically about the organization. You'll need more independent third party media coverage of the organization in reliable sources before the organization is deemed notable enough for an article. Here's an article I created over five years ago: Cancer Breakthroughs 2020. It has been since renamed and heavily edited, but despite having fewer sources than RFTCA, there is at least significant coverage of the initiative in very well known publications, including the NY Times, LA Times, Reuters, and to a less well known degree, Stat. It appears you may be blocked for being frustrated about the process, but there is no bias being directed to you - the same rules are applied to all the content (or at least the offending content that has been brought to our attention). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALL THOSE INTERESTED IN INCREASING TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS IN WIKI:

I hope my experience will lead to improvements to create an even and neutral discussion process without bullying and intimidation from snarky admin:

1) My page was nominated for deletion by User:DGG, but just check out the snarky tone he used to set the tone for discussion on deletion of the page. I believe editors should be neutral as well.

2) I made significant changes to addressed tone and the same either then said the new problem now is that the page is not notable. I added about six publications talking about the subject of the page, including a New York newspaper and a Swiss news magazing and User:Star Mississippi blocked me from making further comments to the discussion page. Instead I was instructed to add any reason to be unblocked to my own User Talk Page.

3) When I did as instructed, saying I wanted to be added back so I could bring into the discussion a newly published report in a major biotech / pharma publication focused on the technology of the foundation and also the foundation that is the subject of the page being deleted, I was accused by User:DGG of using my page to be promotional, with the added threat to block me from adding to my own page, as the other editors had just instructed me to do.

4) Both User:DGG and User:Star Mississippi have suggested I further blocked from the page, from Wiki and/or from my own Talk Page, though they say they will not block me themselves for whatever reason, apparently that reason doesn't block them from suggesting that other editors take these actions.

5) Sounds to me like ganging up on someone trying to add information about a public U.S. 501c3 non-profit with an unprecedented roylaty-free license to cell engineering technology in the field of curing AIDS. I believe the process for deleting this page has been botched and the editors have used their authority to act as bullies.

6) If I am deleted, I hope this last post remains: the AIDS advocacy space is full of people who try to suppress talk of a cure for AIDS. AIDS Activists signed scientifically gibberish consensus statement put forth by a housing expert stating: "we now have the means to end the global and U.S. HIV epidemics, even without a vaccine or a cure, by dramatically reducing new HIV infections and eliminating AIDS deaths." The author of this statement himself acknowledged putting this statement forward in the public listserv for discussions by an AIDS activist group known as ACT-UP.ACT-UP is a free and open group that states all statements that users are in the public domain and an email supporting what I described can be found in the permanent listserv records dated 9:13AM Sept 4, 2019. I believe that the statement I shared is evidence that the deletion of a page relating to curing AIDS should be carefully evaluated, including the bullying that I have experienced here.

7) I believe that the deletion of the page for Research Foundation to Cure AIDS is an error and that the process used by Wiki to disappear the page is itself gravely problematic with editors abusing their authority. If there is any way to nominate the editors involved in this process for review, I think that that would be a healthy thing to do for the fairness of information that is available on Wiki.

A problem with open-edit platforms like Wiki is that they can be abused. In this case I believe the discussion of the deletion of the page I created was completely botched by editors who failed to remain neutral at the detriment of having information about an organization working to cure AIDS available to the public.

KambizShekdar (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to notify the following editors when making my comment above, so I am copy-pasting it with this notice to both editors: {{subst:ANI-notice [[USER:DGG] [[USER:User:Star Mississippi}} If I got the coding end of how to do this on Wiki, please do let me know. Thank you, Kambiz USER:DGG USER:User:Star Mississippi

Copy-pasted from above (with a few typos corrected)

ALL THOSE INTERESTED IN INCREASING TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS IN WIKI:

I hope my experience will lead to improvements to create an even and neutral discussion process without bullying and intimidation from snarky admin:

1) My page was nominated for deletion by User:DGG, but just check out the snarky tone he used to set the tone for discussion on deletion of the page. I believe editors should be neutral as well.

2) I made significant changes to addressed tone and the same either then said the new problem now is that the page is not notable. I added about six publications talking about the subject of the page, including a New York newspaper and a Swiss news magazine and User:Star Mississippi then blocked me from making further comments to the discussion page. Instead I was instructed to add any reason to be unblocked to my own User Talk Page.

3) When I did as instructed, saying I wanted to be added back so I could bring into the discussion a newly published report in a major biotech / pharma publication that focused on the technology of the foundation and also the foundation that is the subject of the page being deleted, I was accused by User:DGG of using my page to be promotional, with the added threat to now block me from adding to my own page, as the other editor had just instructed me to do. (Basically: One editor says do "X", the next one says we'll block you because you did "X".)

4) Both User:DGG and User:Star Mississippi have suggested I be further blocked from the page, from Wiki and/or from my own Talk Page, though they say they will not block me themselves for whatever reason, apparently that reason doesn't block them from suggesting that other editors take these actions. ***I suggest they be reviewed, including their past actions in deleting other pages and blocker others who spoke out against unfair practices.***

5) Sounds to me like ganging up on someone trying to add information about a public U.S. 501c3 non-profit with an unprecedented roylaty-free license to cell engineering technology in the field of curing AIDS. I believe the process for deleting this page has been botched and the editors have used their authority to act as bullies.

6) If I am deleted, I hope this last post remains: the AIDS advocacy space is full of people who try to suppress talk of a cure for AIDS. AIDS Activists signed a scientifically gibberish consensus statement stating: "we now have the means to end the global and U.S. HIV epidemics, even without a vaccine or a cure, by dramatically reducing new HIV infections and eliminating AIDS deaths." The author of this statement himself, an HIV/AIDS housing subsidy expert, acknowledged putting this statement forward in the public listserv for discussions by an AIDS activist group known as ACT-UP. ACT-UP is a free and open group that states all statements and contributions made by users are in the public domain, and an email supporting what I described can be found in the permanent listserv records dated 9:13AM Sept 4, 2019.

Deletion of a page relating to curing AIDS should be carefully evaluated, including the bullying that I have experienced here.

7) I believe that the deletion of the page for Research Foundation to Cure AIDS is an error and that the process used by Wiki to disappear the page is itself gravely problematic with editors abusing their authority.

If there is any way to nominate the editors involved in this process for review, I think that that would be a healthy thing to do for the fairness of information that is available on Wiki.

A problem with open-edit platforms like Wiki is that they can be abused. In this case I believe the discussion of the deletion of the page I created was completely botched by editors who failed to remain neutral at the detriment of having information about an organization working to cure AIDS available to the public. KambizShekdar (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked to request that any person who signed the consensus statement stating the a cure for AIDS is not needed to end the AIDS epidemic be blocked from editing the page "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS" or anything related to the topic or curing HIV or curing AIDS due to COI KambizShekdar (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That won't be happening. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

September 2021[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

A warning has been added to the page for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS" saying that the page may have been created by someone who has been paid = NOT TURE. I wrote the content on the page and I have never any salary from RFTCA nor any payment for creating this page whatsoever. It is clear from the record that the additions to the page are made from me. The accustion is baseless and unfounded. I would like to be unblocked so that I may defend myself. KambizShekdar (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

An Editor put a warning on the page for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS" that "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments." This statement is false. It is clear from the Wiki record that I added the content on the page because I signed my name to each one and provided my affiliation as founder of the non-profit org. I have not been paid a single dollar to add any content or comment to this page nor have I ever received a salary from the organization. I request being unblocked so that I can make this clear to whomever added this false warning so that they may delete it or ask for any further evidence to confirm that no payment was made for any additions to the page.KambizShekdar (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked for this purpose. PhilKnight (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The wording "may have been" covers your objections. Usually, self-promotional non-profit groups assign a low level staffer to try to place promotional content on Wikipedia, which we do not accept, and usually the founders of such groups avoid engaging in promotional editing on Wikipedia. In this case, you as the founder of the group have decided to immerse yourself in promotional editing for the benefit of your group, despite many warnings to desist from this conduct. Let me be crystal clear. Your involvement in this is unwelcome, unwanted and not permitted. I am declining your unblock request and revoking your talk page access. Please read WP:UTRS for your options going forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Research Foundation to Cure AIDS[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Research Foundation to Cure AIDS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. dudhhrContribs 14:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KambizShekdar&oldid=1047580477"