Talk:Virodene

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the South African politics task force.

This article doesn't make sense since it says the drug is antibacterial and AIDS is caused by a virus.Borock (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virodene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aegis.com/news/dmg/2002/MG020610.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Revert by Jorge1777 here seems to be a possible mistake of extremely useful and pertinent edits. comrade waddie96 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~You're going to need to be more specific. Jorge1777 (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)~~ strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge1777 These edits are perfectly on point for WP:LINK please can you explain how they're unhelpful? And why you cite WP:EDITWAR in this revert when you yourself are aiding and participating in one? comrade waddie96 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are you not allowed to revert those who have no consensus for inclusion? Jorge1777 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]