Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:42, 4 June 2009

Benzo article review

Sorry, I see now that the remark was both non-specific and negative, therefore pointless, and you were right to erase it. However, I am certainly not following you around. There are just so very many articles that you manage, they are impossible to avoid. And no, I did not in the end have any effect on the alprazolam article because you changed the wording to reverse the sense of what little I contributed, then dismissed the sources as biased and worthless. I regret having given the impression of a personal vendetta.Rose bartram (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh right ok, I just wondered how you knew the benzo article was up for good article review. I guess you found it via the talk page or something. Sorry for wrongly assuming and accusing. I think that you may be referring to this edit. I changed that because after reading the source that you used, I saw that the way that you had interpreted it misinterpreted the ref, I merely expanded on the citation that you used. Please don't feel bad, I have flown off the handle on wikipedia myself, mainly in my early days on here. I don't mind people who have opposing views. You know believe it or not I do believe that you have helped improve the benzo artcles or stimulated me to improve the references, eg the 3 review articles now on the lead of the benzo withdrawal article. :) The alprazolam article as well led to some improvements.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was on alprazolam but you left out the results on alprazolam which showed it to be worse than the longer acting benzodiazepines. That was why I added in the statement of alprazolam and it causing 35% of people withdrawal after only 8 weeks. It would be senseless to quote the results of long acting benzodiazepines but not alprazolam. It may have not been your intention to show alprazolam caused a higher and quicker incidence of withdrawal but that was what the data in the source that you chose said, although the authors tried to play this down which made me look into their bias and conflict of interest etc. I was not unfair to include the stats from the ref on alprazolam for the article alprazolam. I didn't distort but clarified misleading paragraph by expanding using the source you chose to use. I don't mind debates like this by the way just didn't like the personal attack type post on review article. I am happy to debate mine and your edits. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Hey LG wondering if I have set up the RFC properly? Weather ADHD is controversial or not have been debated every since I started editing. These debates detract from improving articles. Therefore feel that we need to deal with it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the guidelines page and it seems that you did Doc, but I could be wrong. I have never set up a request for comments before.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Thank you for making a report about scuro (talk · contribs · block log) on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to report this and did wonder if abuse of templates constitutes vandalism. Perhaps it would have been better to report it to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard? There is also a request for comments that has been opened which may be another option? Where should I report abuse of templates and general desruptive editing? Is RfC best option or Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard? Thanks for looking into this and sorry to take up your time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be better at WP:AN3, I feel (hi there by the way). An RFC may be a bit premature here, and unless you feel it is very urgent, AN is a bit of overkill (though you're certainly welcome to use it). That's just my opinion, of course. If you'd like I could just mediate the matter until you reach a compromise. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. An RfC has already been started by Doc James but it is a content dispute. I will hold back from AN and WP:AN3 for now. If you would like to mediate that would be great. The dispute is here, User_talk:Scuro#April_2009 and starting here Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#coatrack.2Fbiased_article to bottom of talk page is background info. :) --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey LG I dealt with Scuro for many months. Had no success. One day he just left and now unfortunately he is back. There just does not seem to be any insight. Anyway would like to say I appreciate the help. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome for the help. Scuro is certainly persistant and not very reasonable at all. They are unbelievably argumentantive. I really don't know yet if it is their personality, or if they have a financial conflict of interest. I just wish they would do their battle with citations rather than try and wear down their opponents with arguments which fill up the talk page. I don't think Scuro realises who he is dealing with and that we can't be forced off wiki or to back down like he has done with other editors like the consultant psychiatrist he chased off. I don't think Scuro realises that we have underwent extensive training on the quinolone articles! ;-) I have had editing the methylphenidate article on my to do list for quite some time and now I have largely finished with benzo articles and quinolone articles I made a stab at it. I saw the nonsense that was in the article and bias and knew it needed some work. One example was the lead said without any citation "methylphenidate is a mild stimulant". Sources were taken out of context as well. Reading the literature on that drug then brought me into editing the ADHD drugs when I found relevant articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way good work on the FQ article. Looks much better than when I first came along. I know I can come across a little harsh some times. Hope no long term offense taken. I can be convinced with data. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Doc. Thank you for your work on it as well. If it wasn't for you pushing the issues with the article then a lot of the improvements may not have happened. No offense has been taken and likewise I hope no long term offense was taken by you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

over wrote ADHD contribs

Sorry Litgeek, I overwrote your contribs temporarily because I was busy organizing. I'll readd them in in a second. Sifaka 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, is it ok if I leave them out? I have been trying to keep the scope of the paragraph centered on controversies about ADHD and I feel like your recent contribs are too general in topic. They might better fit in stimulant, but truthfully there isn't really a good article or subsection for this info. Maybe a new subsection in stimulant or a whole article is in order. I don't know though. Feel around and see what other people think. Sifaka 00:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. no problem. I mustn't have paid enough attention to the methodology aspects of the study. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. One of the main controversies surrounding ADHD and stimulants is the very limited research. So robust large studies assessing certain endpoints or meta-anaylsis's etc on the long term effects don't exist. So I would be opposed to deleting the limited research findings that have been found. What I would support however, is keeping the data but clarifying within the wikipedia article the methodology problems such as small sample size. I don't agree with some of the edits that you have done. For example why was the source saying short term clinical trial data can't be relied on to determine long term effects deleted? I agree with some of your other edits. I am going to bed now but will check on the article later.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The high rates of schizophrenics and bipolar patients having a past history of use of amphetamine based stimulants in childhood should not have been deleted. All that is important is that the refs are not taken out of context. This is what the ref says,

Retrospective data from patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders document high rates of childhood stimulant use—generally higher even than other groups with attentional dysfunction (26) and histories of stimulant-associated adverse behavioral effects (27). In these patients, a history of stimulant use is also associated with an earlier age at onset (28) and a more severe course of illness during hospitalization (29). Stimulant exposure in vulnerable individuals may hasten the onset or worsen the course of bipolar or schizophrenic illnesses (26, 30).

This is how I summarised it in wiki,

High rates of childhood stimulant use is found in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder independent of ADHD. Individuals with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia who were prescribed stimulants during childhood typically have a significantly earlier onset of the psychotic disorder and suffer a more severe clinical course of psychotic disorder.

The source, was a peer reviewed secondary source review article which is the highest quality of source under wikipedia reliable sources guidelines. Please don't delete high quality sources without discussion or challenging it with another secondary source.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You changed my edits which accurately interpreted the review article to make it say something completely different which I don't even think the review article even said. You changed it to say "Potential long term effects of methylphenidate being investigated include drug addiction, withdrawal reactions, psychosis and depression." It was reviewing research which has already been carried out, the ref was not about future research. It was not talking about current ongoing research or future research. What you did was misrepresented the ref, so I reverted it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There were so many changes and major deletions of good quality secondary sourced info and at least some of the changes distorted what the ref said. I had to revert it all. I think if you are going to delete secondary sourced data that it should be discussed first especially as it is a controversial article. Some of your changes may have been improvements to the article but I just couldn't decifer them from the major deletions and reordering from viewing the edit history. There were just too many changes so I just reverted. Please discuss first major changes. I hope that we don't fall out over this. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to copy the content of this discussion to the talk page since someone else might want to see it and it's about the article content. Sifaka 04:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mind you copying the content over. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a huge no-no to revert talk page posts on wiki

Thought you should know. I'll have to immediately get administrators involved if it is repeated.--scuro (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He's right. Consider this a warning. Did you accidentally delete? --Abd (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below) I see not. Don't do it, LG, it can get you blocked, or at least cause significant disruption. Scuro can be handled; and, in fact, he is useful to the project as long as he is restrained by other editors. Unrestrained, yes, he has done damage in the past, which may be taking time to undo. But take it one step at a time: develop and demonstrate good dispute resolution skills, which means always seeking to extend consensus, while at the same time being firm, within behavioral guidelines, against damage. It's impossible to do this alone, but two or three editors who are in POV agreement should be very careful about imposing this agreement on the article, disregarding even a single editor with a different POV. These are general considerations, and I have explicitly not considered any pending disputes over article text. There is discussion of this on my Talk page, started by Doc James. --Abd (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand you frustration. All I think we should do from now now is just repeatedly ask for Scuro to provide references which support his view. An admin I hope is getting involved. I do not see any other final outcome other than Scuro getting predominantly block from editing pages pertaining to ADHD, he has stated himself that he is a single topic user, but you never know. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Scuro_and_editors_generally--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree abd. Perhaps reverting wasn't the best option, but I still think a warning template is appropriate for repeated disruptive forum type postings on article talk pages. It gets very frustrating to get dragged into debates by scuro which have little to nothing to do with improving the article. There are guidelines for talk pages to avoid disruption. See Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. The talk pages are turning into a discussion forum. I think that you perhaps are looking at my one revert in isolation rather than the endless debates that come up which have nothing to do with reliable sources or content of reliable sources or about the article content. Scuro just keeps going on and on. I feel that I was justified in reverting his talk page comments as the accumulation of them day after day after day was getting highly disuptive. I have gotten into quite a few content disputes on talk pages but every time we were talking about reliable sources and thu slowly but surely making progress. With scuro it is completely different, he is just using talk page as a discussion forum and wearing people down. I don't want to come onto wikipedia to use it as a debating club over and over again. Sure sometimes people go off topic with one or two postings on a talk page, easily done but not post after post after post, day after day after day filling talk page up with nothing directly relevant to reliable sources and content of reliable sources. I am at the pont now where I have no choice but to use the warning templates for edits which is not directly related to reliable sources or the content of already cited reliable sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated warnings without followup will just make the natives restless. First of all, how important is it? What if the editor rambles on for 100 kb and nobody responds? Why is this an emergency? There are options open to you, and you can do any of them if you have substantial support from other editors. Sections can be fast-archived. That's not deletion. And neither is the use of collapse boxes. Let the editor's arguments see the light of day, but, then, if they are repetitive, collapse them. People do it with me not infrequently, I either accept it or I don't. If I had more time I'd help you out, but I don't. In brief, though, here is a collapse box:

--Abd (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of the collapse box if things get out of hand again. I hadn't thought of collapse boxes before. Thank you Abd. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

99.234.95.84 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Popular Hollywood films such as The Soloist and A Beautiful Mind provide true stories from the lives of patients and their families.99.234.95.84 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Literaturegeek

Thank you for your friendly words.

Actually I just asked for help on my talk page. A minor citation problem, I could not resolve myself. I would be happpy if you helped me. Leontaurus (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting paper

Hello LG. This is a really interesting paper on ADHD and answers many of the question of the current discussion. Can get you a full copy if interested. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x37lh34l07234336/ --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doc, that would be kind of you if you got me the full text. If you can email me it then I will give it a read. Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

those who live in glass houses...

LG, if you don't want me to post on your talk page then you shouldn't make groundless complaints on my talk page. That sort of action is uncivil and I will point out uncivil behaviour on your talk page every time it happens. Also focusing on contributors is discouraged like here ] I've seen several examples of such behaviour and I ask you to kindly stop.--scuro (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I ask you to kindly ask that you make productive edits to talk pages from now on using reliable sources for your positions. Thank you for your views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

primary sources

Don't oversimplify the actual policy. "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Misplaced Pages:No original synthesis). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Misplaced Pages's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field." Sufficiently authoritative primary sources can be used to contract low quality reviews. Not a secondary sources are of equally high reliability. I'm not here referring to any particular source or issue. DGG (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea that backs up my point. What you quoted backs up my position that primary sources should not be used to delete opposing views reliably cited. I sometimes use primary sources myself, I don't use them however to try and delete opposing views cited to secondary source. The issue was someone basically arguing that secondary sourced controversy stuff should be deleted based on primary sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In the end, it's all up to editorial consensus, which is why civility and encouragement of cooperation are so important. There is a question of source quality; I see the problem most commonly where primary sources show clearly one thing, then secondary media sources, relying on obsolete or even originally deceptive information, without true independent confirmation, show another. For example, in March of this year, there was some new research reported widely in the media, a finding of energetic neutrons in controlled Cold fusion experiments, where neutrons, if there is no fusion, have no right to be. In some of these reports, in giving background, it was stated that the original Pons and Fleischmann experiments of 1989 had "never been replicated." I have a list of 153 peer-reviewed, published papers confirming the fundamental Pons and Fleischmann finding, that of excess heat. We have, here, reliable primary sources apparently contradicting reliable secondary source (newspapers). However, the primary sources are of higher quality (peer-reviewed, academic). My own solution is still to report what's in the secondary sources, but with attribution and juxtaposition, so that the error is quite visible. It can be a knotty problem. Particularly if there is no secondary source noting the 153 papers. Still, editorial consensus can handle it; one solution would be to, indeed, remove the secondary report based on the clarity of the evidence from primary sources. My position is that consensus is our true authority as to how to interpret WP:RS and WP:V. --Abd (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Abd but you are mistaken. Newspapers and other popular press are not generally considered reliable sources and should usuallt be avoided in medicine related articles. See Misplaced Pages:MEDRS#Popular_press.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

I'd like to ask you to consider retracting the most recent comment you made at the ANI discussion on the ban proposal. I wasn't productive at all, gave no evidence and wasn't in the spirit of civility. I understand tensions are running high, but do try to remain professional. Thanks, Nja 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call, cheers. Nja 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NJA. I was actually in the process of getting diffs anyway to expand on that comment but I deleted it and toned down my comments. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of Mediation?

Heya, Scuro has proposed another go at Mediation here. Please consider all the dialogue in that section and express your agreement or otherwise with that proposal or the other proposals listed there. Thank you. Nja 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nja. Thank you for your reply. I am opposed to mediation (unless the outcome is a possible block) as I don't think that this particular case is a matter of editors fallingout or disagreeing, so there are no fences to mend. I think that this is a matter of a extremely prolonged disruptive editor (possibly paid for their disruption) who needs to be blocked. I would be happy to see a reassessment on an appropriate location to reinvestigate whether there is enough evidence to block them.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom: the pluses and minuses

Having recently been a named party in an ArbCom case myself , you should be forewarned. First, there is no guarantee that ArbCom will take the case. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, ArbCom needs to be shown that a serious pattern has developed over the years in which the usual dispute mechanisms failed to "correct" the problem of disruption. Second, even if ArbCom takes the case, it is a lengthy bureaucratic process lasting anywhere from four to eight weeks. Third, based on my first-hand experience, the more analytical and dispassionate the argument the better. All the usual statistical evidence, patterns of editing, concrete examples of disruption, etc. needs to be presented in a very concise "get-to-the-point-and-show-us" way. ArbCom weighs those verifiable observations again the rebuttal from the "offender(s)" and slowly but surely (1) determine the validity and gravity of what the defendant has been accused, and (2) what "remedies" are needed. The bad news is that it’s a lot of hard archival and statistical work with no guarantee of success (indeed, sometimes it backfires). The good news is: if you effectively make the case, ArbCom comes down very hard (like an anvil) on the offender. To get a feel for how it works, I recommend reading very carefully how the Ayn Rand case progressed. There are similarities in the editing behavior problems. Good luck, J Readings (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this to me. I read the page and can see some similarities of that case and this case. Analytical approach sounds like good advice, thanks. It looks good but it sounds like too much work to be honest. I don't have the time nor motivation to go through several thousand edits. Maybe it is better to revert to the status quo on the article talk pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Now comes the really hard part. Short-and-to-the-point evidence. Remember: the evidence cannot exceed 1,000 words under any circumstances. Anything above that will just irritate and alienate the jury (I've seen it happen). Best to be methodical on the issue of disruptive editing (as the guidelines view it) with plenty of links that demonstrate and reinforce just that. So far, your evidence is cogently presented in my humble opinion. Unfortunately, this is a very bureaucratic process, so be prepared for a long drawn-out two or three months. Scuro is obligated to respond (and you're allowed a rejoinder) within 1,000 words. Good luck, J Readings (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Depression

This is a very interesting study. Paroxtine found to be inferior to placebo in parkinson's with depression. Sort of fits with the metanalysis that found SSRI to not be clinically effective for mild mod and severe depression.

A controlled trial of antidepressants in patients with Parkinson disease and depression.

Menza M, Dobkin RD, Marin H, Mark MH, Gara M, Buyske S, Bienfait K, Dicke A.

Department of Psychiatry, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, UMDNJ-University Behavioral Health Care, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. menza@umdnj.edu

BACKGROUND: Parkinson disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disease affecting up to 1 million individuals in the United States. Depression affects up to 50% of these patients and is associated with a variety of poor outcomes for patients and their families. Despite this, there are few evidence-based data to guide clinical care. METHODS: An NIH-funded, randomized, controlled trial of paroxetine CR, nortriptyline, and placebo in 52 patients with PD and depression. The primary outcomes were the change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the percentage of depression responders at 8 weeks. RESULTS: Nortriptyline was superior to placebo for the change in HAM-D (p < 0.002); paroxetine CR was not. There was a trend for superiority of nortriptyline over paroxetine CR at 8 weeks (p < 0.079). Response rates favored nortriptyline (p = 0.024): nortriptyline 53%, paroxetine CR 11%, placebo 24%. In planned contrasts of response rates, nortriptyline was superior to paroxetine CR (p = 0.034). Nortriptyline was also superior to placebo in many of the secondary outcomes, including sleep, anxiety, and social functioning, while paroxetine CR was not. Both active drug treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Though relatively modest in size, this is the largest placebo-controlled trial done to date in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and depression. Nortriptyline was efficacious in the treatment of depression and paroxetine CR was not. When compared directly, nortriptyline produced significantly more responders than did paroxetine CR. The trial suggests that depression in patients with PD is responsive to treatment and raises questions about the relative efficacy of dual reuptake inhibitors and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Publication Types: Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural PMID: 19092112

Interesting Doc. I wonder if that is true for other ssris.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Hi, I've filed a request for arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder. Have named you as a party in the request; you may wish to make a statement. Durova 16:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Durova.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's probably not much need to continue tweaking your statement to the RFAR; the case will be opened shortly and then you can present evidence or suggested remedies in the workshop. –xeno 05:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks xeno. :) First time doing an ArbCom. Infact all of these different proceedures are pretty new to me. I have a habit of submiting then thinking later LOL so I find myself tweaking things. I must stop that! :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you like, you could remove those {curly braces} around your headings. –xeno 23:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno, I thought for some reason they were meant to be left on. I have removed them.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ADHD

You might want to review the wording of WP:3RR before accusing people of violating it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed that after I reverted you and did a small punctuation edit to the article and "cleared your name" by saying I made a mistake in the edit summary. See here.Then I got this message.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I see how I made the mistake, I initially thought your first edit was a revert when it was a deletion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the note. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Benzo article

Congratulations on getting it to GA status. Will take some pictures of iv benzos and flumazenil at work on Thursday. Looks like we also need an image of activated charcoal on wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Oh that would be great to get some pics of flumazenil and IV benzos. Yup activated charcoal would be good to. I went into a local pharmacy and took the pictures of the diazepam and chlordiazepoxide and added it to the benzo article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive therapy

Good job; that was quite a find. The whole thing could have been written today. Amazing. - Hordaland (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hordaland. :) I hope my evidence helps brings closure to this issue. The disruption can't continue. Everyone is warn out from it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro

Scuro has said a couple of times that he does not think he should provide research as he feels it will just be reverted. Have you seen this diff?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out xeno's (or Scuro's) talk-page. It's stated there for one, I think. I think he also stated it on someone else's user talk-page. (Although they might be inadmissible if it's a user-page. Best to check with the ArbCom clerk.) FWIW, J Readings (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is most definitely evidence. It is in my opinion evidence of trying to manipulate the process against him, it is more evidence of the disruptive editing that we are talking about. Scuro is trying to make himself the victim by saying things which are untrue. A common theme which drags people into endless debates trying to defend oneself and the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Yeah it was a setting on my account. I didn't actually check that little box every time. Anyway I turned the setting off. Rocknroll714 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine FAC

Hi LG! The article may be good enough to pass the FAC eventually. However, in its current state, it has a lot of unnecessary information, jargon and other style deficits. Would you mind if I start working on it? - It will require a lot of deletions and cutting, though... Sincerely, The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sceptical, Thank you for your reply. Obviously you are free to edit any article on wikipedia but I am a bit uneasy with your statement that it "requires a lot of deletions" especially without knowing what those deletions are. Have you ever been a reviewer on a featured article before or edited an article up to a featured article? There are a lot of guidelines which a featured article or even a good article needs to pass to get ranked as a GA or FA. Thing is it has gone through good article review so there really shouldn't be any huge problems with the article such as lots of unnecessary information. If you pointed out the major flaws that you see maybe we could work it from there. Are you familar with removing redundancy? What information do you think is irrelevant? I would welcome your views and suggestions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear L.! I am motivated solely by the desire to make the article better and to help you. I do not want to oppose the article on the record at the FAC page that is why I asked you if some serious revisions would be acceptable to you. If you wish, I will avoid getting involved with the article. Please let me know.

Alternatively, I could proceed with revisions. You can, of course, revert me. However, please promise to think if the removed information makes the article better.

To answer this question -- Have you ever been a reviewer on a featured article before or edited an article up to a featured article? - Yes I have, but you have to take it on faith.

Again, please let me know which course of actions is preferable to you. Sincerely, The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know Sceptical my friend. I was not in anyway thinking that you were wanting to do anything other than to improve the article. I am not opposed to you getting involved in the article at all. My only fear is because it has been under intense peer review (good article nomination and now undergoing featured article review) that major changes could then add additional reviews and problems to resolve.

I myself am nervous about editing anything major into or out of the article now incase it adds additional problems to resolve. I would prefer that if you want to suggest major changes to the article that you comment on the featured article review page. Like I say though you are free to edit the article though and if opposed it can always be reverted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let me try. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that your edits are good. Thanks very much for doing them. I undid your moving of the List of benzodiazepines to the top of the article. In my opinion it is rare that a see also link should be above the lead/intro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

Looks like wikipedia no longer allow these images under fair use. Check out wiki commons.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent picture doc, pitty we can't use it. Why are we not allowed to use it? Is it because of the manufacturer name being visible on it or something? I am sure that we can use the activated charcoal picture when you upload it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a whole bunch of pictures. I am now unsure what we can and cannot use. Maybe if we speak to the manufacture they would allow it. It is good exposure for their product.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is full of similar pictures however. I wonder if this means we need to remove them all? Would be a shame.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found some more information --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what's wrong with this image? Was it taken from a company website or press pack? If you took it yourself, it's perfectly acceptable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. I took these at work. Guess I was overreading the copyright stuff. Good thing I am not a lawyer. Will upload more for the page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

replaced the image with a better close up, other images can be found here --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice images, thanks very much for uploading them. The flumazenil one is too big for the main benzodiazepine article unless you can shrink it. Maybe it can be shrunk on wikipedia. I have added the midazolam one to the main benzodiazepine article. The drug overdose page could do with an activated charcoal picture.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a cropped version: File:Flumazenil vial.JPG. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FV. It is still a bit too big for the overdose section in bnzo article but not to worry, the cropped version is used in the main benzodiazepine overdose article. What do you think of the benzodiazepine article? Anymore suggestions? Or do you think that the bulk of the problems have been resolved?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's still work to be done—relax, though. FAC is a long and not infrequently unpleasant process :) I'm just doing some mindless work here today, and haven't had a chance to really read the article in depth. I will leave some more comments at the FAC discussion as soon as possible. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FV. :) Article has come a long some more. Two people have voted to support it as a featured article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis..

Hi there.. as per your edit on the Ritalin article.. Cannabis WAS reclassified to a Class B drug very recently under UK law recently.. I've undone your change.. as I was trying to illustrate to Americans et al. that the UK government puts the two in the same league..

http://www.talktofrank.com/drugs.aspx?id=172 - Class B Classification citation

Dvmedis (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you are incorrect. Your citation does not provide a date for when the article was written. I also follow the news daily and I also follow drug and alcohol news regularly and have seen discussions of reclassifcation but nothing saying that it has happened yet and it may not ever happen, time will tell.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.. please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7850342.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7845023.stm

And I quote.. "The reclassification of cannabis as a Class B drug has come into effect in England and Wales amid complaints the new laws are "illogical"." - Jan 26 2009

I follow cannabis law very tightly, and can assure you with the above links that it is a Class B (in England & Wales).. Dvmedis (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been proved wrong. Thanks for the links. I don't know why I wasn't aware of the change.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep calm

Literaturegeek, FAC is a stressful place and you've lost your cool. I strongly suggest you strike your personal remarks on the FAC page and apologise. A FAC that deteriorates into personal squabbles will not attract further quality reviews and that sort of behaviour is against our etiquette policy (WP:NPA). Deal with review comments in a professional manner (you don't have to agree with them all). Remember that a FAC isn't a one-and-only chance and you are trying to produce "Misplaced Pages's very best work". There are no special awards for passing first time. Use this time to get feedback and, fingers crossed, support, and if you don't make it this time, you'll undoubtedly come back in a month or so with a stronger article. If you feel there's some unfairness going on, ask someone wise to help (ask in a neutral way, don't spill out your fury). I can suggest User:GrahamColm and User:Fvasconcellos as wise owls who have experience with medical articles. Take care, Colin° 12:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Colin for your words of wisdom and I know that you are correct. I striked out the comments which were personal attacks. I guess I felt that he was trying to mess up the featured article review on purpose so I went on a "personal defense" which I guess still is a "personal attack" haha. :) You are right though keeping one's cool is the most important thing on wiki and losing one's cool only drags yourself and your own image down with other editors. I know it is very stressful but I am prepared for the debates, disagreements, disputes and the enormous effort of getting the article up to FA standard but just feel Sceptical Chymist is being intentionally disruptive or personal. The reason I reacted the way I did was because I felt that they weren't constructive review comments. I took them as being motivated by bad rather than good purposes. It was a continuation of what went on on the talk page. I will contact one of the administrators that you have suggested.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

LG, please try to relax, even consider taking a few days off. You've posted your concerns now to at least four places, which is forum shopping, and you're well into personal attack territory. The FAC was doing fine until this behavior started; please try to back off a bit, as several have advised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)