Talk:Oxytetracycline

Untitled

I was prescribed oxytetracycline 250mg 4 times per day to treat acne roseca. For me, a side effect was constipation, which is not one of the listed side effects. It could be because I am on other medication. When acne flared up again, I was prescribed Vibramicina 100mg once per day. This cleared the acne with no side effects.

Is this oxytetracycline a right structure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongjong2 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

E number

I added citation needed to the newly added E number. User:DePiep reverted with the reason its sourced in E number, but it isnt (if it is; show me which reference) (and one WikiPedia article cant use another article as a reference - but I was reverted twice). Its not a current E number at least[1], and the list at E Number says: "The list shows all components that have or had an E-number assigned.". But I suspect it never have had an E number at all. Christian75 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

a. You reverted saying "there are no sources on the target page". I counted 24, and said so.

b. You did not claim that "Oxytetracycline is not E703", as you start doing here. You asked for source to be added, that is something different.

c. Instead of pissing backwards and spilling our energy, you could have made yourself a happy day by exploring & improving the situation. Page E number for example. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: There is no source for E703 on on the target page (target = E number) (of course there is sources; but did you think I just said there isnt any sources, or did you think I thought there wasnt any sources about E703?), and one person at talk:E number thinks E7xx doesnt exist too. EU doesnt list E 7XX as E numbers[2]. And I added the cn because I thought it was dubious that oxytetracycline has an E number at all. Do you have any sources since you reverted the citation needed tag? I cant add a source because I cant find one - therefore I added {{cn}}. Add a reference or readd the {{cn}} again Christian75 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Just improve the pages, instead of tagging & sweating issues. Whatever you found, you can use that on E number page right? I'm bizzy elsaewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

But thats mean I have to remove the E numner again, agree? (With {{cn}} is a way to say "I disagree; but prove me wrong") Christian75 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You are into this detail more than I am, by now. Of course we all want the two articles to be OK. And together as a pair. So if you find this thing can be improved somewhere: do so. I'd say: improve some source link. That is always better than tagging with a 'cn'. Feels better too, imo. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)