User talk:Literaturegeek/Archive 3

WP:V 2

Hi, you recently supported a talk page proposal (proposal 5) to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. The proposal has attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages Jayen, I did voice my view just before you sent me this. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed afterwards. :) It's an important discussion to have; consensus leans towards making some change. The present policy wording is the one that has least support. --JN466 14:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I can see the consensus is leaning strongly that way. It is frustrating that people think newspapers are on the same level of reliability as the peer reviewed literature for reporting scientific results and conclusions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agomelatine

Hi Lg! You know drug articles (and I don't). This one looks ridiculous to me. More info than on the package insert. Is this reasonable? Thanx, --Hordaland (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hordaland, How are things? All good I hope. :) You are right the article is poorly written (although I have seen worse on wikipedia), layout is bad, way too much detail and large overuse of primary source clinical trials, a lot of those primary sources could do with being replaced with a few review papers. Some content looks like it is in the wrong sections etc. If you are interested, we could both spend a little bit of time trying to improve the article. It is an interesting antidepressant, in that it has sleep promoting properties, a lot of antidepressants can worsen insomnia or not help it in a lot of people (although I am not a psychiatrist, just a lay observation of people and from reading bits of literature here and there).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

All fine here. Snow is gone for this time, and my blog gets over 1000 page hits a month; can't complain. My interest in Agomelatine is that I might want to try it. Though it's more than ten times as expensive as most of them, at least in Europe. (Citation on request. ;))

How to start fixing the article? Pare it to a stub and start over? Googling I see that it's been talked about for years, so there must be some reviews out there. Hordaland (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI. User:Boghog has worked on the article.  :-) Hordaland (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, great, BogHog is great on the pharmacology end of things. I was planning to look at it over the weekend. Great to hear of the popularity of your blog. :) Ah yea, if I remember you cannot get melatonin where you live? If your doctor prescribes you it, I hope that it is of benefit for your sleep problems. I will give a read over of the article on Saturday. Are there any particular points that you think are missing or need to be addressed on the article?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agomelatine is much improved. I still feel it's longer than necessary, but it's a good 20% shorter than it was. The word agomelatine appears 27 times (excluding references) and the word Valdoxan appears 28 times (excluding references); to me this is just short of advertising. The lead is much too short. But the article is much easier to read than it was before Boghog's work and it isn't in dire need anymore. Hordaland (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced a lot of the brand names with the generic name and I have expanded the lede a little but it will need some time more work done on it. Please feel welcome to change anything I wrote in the lede or expand on it etc. :) Boghog did a great job by the looks of things. I upgraded the article from start class to C class. If you need any more help let me know.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Request comments

Hi..I request your comments about the notability of Religious typification section on Jehovah's Witness talk page. Thank you--Logical Thinker:talk 05:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am a bit busy at the moment, I will try to get a look at the dispute maybe next week.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

psychoanalysis

It's true that Bell's Palsy is an affliction of the seventh cranial nerve, but this is an extension of the brain, and the brain thinks about things and sometimes comes down with neurosis, unlike your brain. Therefore, you have no need to recuse yourself due to bias. Therefore, please look at all the evidence. If you do, I am sure you will allow a small section in the main article to suggest that sometimes Bell's palsy might be psychogenic. Snud (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snud. Yes and the brain is a physical organ, the central nervous system. What you are doing is you are proposing a medical hypothesis. It is not a matter of convincing me of this theory, rather you need to find good quality references which support this viewpoint as wikipedia is a reference work. You say look at the evidence, but there is no evidence, at least no hard evidence for your viewpoint, only theory. Psychoanalysis is an art, not a science.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your main page seriously mentions acupuncture, as if that were something other than truly simple-minded psychotherapy. To solemnly declare that Psychoanalysis is an "art" rather than medicine defies common sense. The preferred training for psychiatrists who choose to become therapists is, traditionally, psychoanalysis. http://www.guidetopsychology.com/psypsy.htm The contention that psychoanalysis is not science is pure pedantry originated by Karl Popper who was very seriously debunked in 2003:http://www.friesian.com/gardner.htmSnud (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My main page does not mention acupuncture, do not know what you are talking about. Psychiatry employs science though, for example evidence based drug treatments, and research into mental illness etc. We are still at the starting line here; Bell's Palsy is a real medical disorder, you say that it is psychosomatic, I ask for references which specifically state Bell's Palsy is psychosomatic, you provide none. Wikipedia is a reference work, debates are best held on blogs or forums rather than on wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What's this then?

--Complementary therapy--

"The efficacy of acupuncture remains unknown because the available studies are of low quality (poor primary study design or inadequate reporting practices).[14]"

I found that passage halfway down your main page. This was apparently added because the guy on your discussion page who was cured by acupunture requested it. You treated him with kid gloves for some reason. In fact, the etiology he described was exactly what is expected from conversion disorder. First the patient suffers a minor physical disturbance which unconscious impulses attach themselves to. These are easily cured by suggestion, like hypnosis or acupuncture, but return every time some external stimulus comes along to remind the body of it.

Also, you challenged me to provide proof that Bell's Palsy is psychogenic, so I linked you to a study which duplicated Charcot's experiments with hypnosis 130 years ago. The later experiments specified Bell's palsy but were made in 1953, so you rejected them as outdated, although psychiatry studies were still citing them, as well as Charcot, through the seventies. Maybe we should reject Mendel because nobody has bothered to duplicate his experiments for a century!

Your demands are unreasonable. No layman has access to medical journals. Dr. James found an article that seemed to fit the bill, but he didn't bother to reveal the entire study, presumably because he would have had to take the trouble to go to a medical library.

The only reason for your stubbornness in this has to be political. You are mad at psychoanalysis for some reason. I can't help suspecting your rage may be a wry tribute to Freud. Like Gertrude said in "Hamlet;" "The lady doth protest too much methinks. Snud (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That piece of text comes from the Bell's Palsy page; that is not my main page, it is not my page either as I don't "own" articles, anyone can edit them. I believe that you are confusing me with Doc James or someone else, as I did not participate in any such discussion. Considering that Bell's Palsy is often short-lived, lasting less than 3 weeks in 85 percent of cases, people reporting "cures" by acupuncture or suggestion are more likely to be wrongly attributing healing to an external cure when really it was their body repairing itself over a short-period of time; so no it is not classic conversion. The same thing happens with common colds which last a week or so, people think antibiotics "make them better" even though virus's are not susceptible to antibiotics,,, the reality is their immune system, not the antibiotic killed the virus. This is not "classic conversion", it is simply "being mistaken", drawing a wrong conclusion due to lack of knowledge/ignorance. The studies you provided did not mention Bell's Palsy; you were using irrelevant references of alledged psychosomatic facial paralysis; please find a ref which uses the term "bell's palsy", a recent peer reviewed one; lay people can access abstracts and some peer reviewed text is full text. Psychoanalysis can be very helpful or very unhelpful, and depends on the psychoanalysist's skills in my view. I know a lady who had spinal cancer, and died, very young in her twenties, had very young kids, who was dismissed repeatedly by multiple doctors as psychosomatic,,, to explain extreme spinal pain. I can list many examples such as this, but equally I know people who have had positive experiences with psychoanalysis and counselling etc. Again I really do not want to get into a big debate. Can we wrap this conversation up? I do not have a rage against psychoanalysists; I do think that you should not deny medical evidence so quickly and replace it with "theories".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You have been acting as if you had some authority in this! You reverted my first post on the Bell's palsy discussion board, and yet you scolded me for erasing blocks of information then replaced those blocks yourself! How did you do that? You are really something Geek. And you have the nerve to declare you have nothing against psychoanalysis! You are an enemy of enlightenment. It's no wonder you want to close this discussion. Just for your information, I have saved all this exchange on my hard drive in case you decide to capriciously revert any more of my stuff. Snud (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a rather bizarre response.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Rahther! It was in response to your rather strange behavior. You reverted another man's peaceable and reasonable attempt to improve another man's article, on Pearl Harbor day no less!:

"Hi Snud. I reverted your edits because they were not about improving the article and thus violated talk guidelines. The prevailing viewpoint from what I gather is that it is physiological and triggered by a virus. You need a reference saying that it is psychological, your personal viewpoints are original research, which is not allowed in articles. Personally I think your theory that I reverted, is misguided. You are welcome to continue the discussion if you can provide recent high quality medical sources for discussion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.88.57 Snud (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way; I am glad you resorted to semantics ("The studies you provided did not mention Bell's Palsy; you were using irrelevant references of alledged psychosomatic facial paralysis; please find a ref which uses the term "bell's palsy"). That allows me to introduce semantics in defense of my wish to edit the Bell's palsy article. A synonym for Bell's palsy is "idiopathic facial paralysis." This translates as "facial paralysis with an unknown cause." There are still no biological tests for it. It requires a diagnosis of exclusion, but as far as I could find, nobody has bothered to exclude psychogenesis in diagnosing it. As for corticosteroids, according to Wikipedia those are used to treat both inflamation and stress. The particular manifestation of stress is not specified. Finally, it has been shown in a reputable study that hypnosis can cure certain kinds of *functional* facial paralysis. There is no reason to not call those cases "idiiopathic facial paralysis" or even "hysterical facial paralysis." You are being unreasonable to exclude that, if it actually was you who allowed mention of acupuncture but refused to allow mention of psychoanalysis in the treatment of Bell's palsy. One more thing: The person who described the etiology of his own Bell's palsy was describing a typical hysterical attack. All conversion disorder starts out with some physical disturbance. Look at the Wikipedia "conversion disorder" article (under the *history* subheading) if you don't believe me. That would explain something that is baffling to the neurologists: why do some cases last for years and why do some come and go? Such a phenomenom is is even baffling to researchers of mononucleosis. It has to be doubly baffling to researchers of maladies of tiny facial nerves. I think a "viral" etiology is a sorry theoretical construct at best. Even so, if I were in charge of that article, I would allow it. It is you who has played the ominpotent editor by deciding one branch of medicine should be disregarded in this. (while allowing mention of acupuncture!?)Snud (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that I am being unreasonable in my stance, you are welcome to get views of other editors by posting your views on WT:MED. Answer me one question though, how do you explain infants getting bell's palsy? I never added content regarding acupuncture to the article, infact I have not added any content to the article, I added it to my watch list after editorial assistance was requested due to disruptive edits a year or more ago.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. You should read Freud's "Wolf Man" case history in which he reports the discovery of infantile neurosis and presents a good case for its universality. It is this neurosis which the adult finds a perverse use for in stressful situations. Here is a discussion of infantile bell's palsy: http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/conditions/bellpalsy.html You know, any kind of trauma usually results in dreams which repeat the trauma, and conversion symptoms are actually dreams of sorts. The thing about the forceps to the head at birth leading to Bell's palsy actually validates Freud. it is a bit far-fetched to assume the forceps cause such dramatic local injury without breaking the skin! You know, people who suffer from Bell's palsy invariably describe the feeling as a "slap in the face" which is adult dream symbolism for "insult," just as Freud suggested. As for requesting assistance from medical professionals, I think I'll leave that to you. It'll give you a chance to atone for your scornful and cavalier attitude towards an entire branch of medicine. Snud (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your link says that Bell's palsy is due to infection/immune system. I am sorry but your last comment is out of line; it is you who are advancing fringe theories. An entire branch of medicine? No national body of psychology to my knowledge endorses the view that Bell's Palsy is a conversion disorder, infact the viewpoint is so fringe and outdated that I doubt any psychology organisation even mentions it. You do NOT represent the mainstream view of psychologists, you represent a tiny minority fringe viewpoint that very few people hold. Perhaps I do have a cavalier attitude to certain fringe theories especially if they are rammed down my throat, I do not know why you keep going on about this to me,,, I really have better things to do, it is starting to get tiring replying to you. No hard feelings intended, but please give my head some peace.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please quit defining psychoanalysis as "Fringe" or "Theology" or "Quackery." Who are you to do that? It's true that I'm no professional either, but I'm not in a position of authority around here either. I just happen to think psychoanalysis is far superior to any "mainstream" Dr. Phil baloney, but that's just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.88.57 (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point in continuing this conversation if you are going to distort what I said.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm glad you don't think unflattering things about Psychoanalysis. Maybe I got you wrong. Are you willing to allow a psychoanalyst to give some input? You could even compromise a bit. It turns out that the Wikipedia page on "Fibromyalgia" provides alternative theories on the disorder that include things like "stress" and "Somatization" and "sub-conscious" without ever mentioning Freud or psychoanalysis. If you don't want to exclude information of a possible cure of long-term Bell's Palsy from a legitimate branch of medicine, just contact a psychoanalyst and ask him or her. I will provide you with contacts if you wish. You could finally even out that goofy entry on "acupuncture."Snud (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you please answer the above request. You are acting like a tin-horn dictator. I am going to go ahead and post a reasonable edit similar to the caution on fibromyalgia regarding the possiblity of "stress" in the etiology of the illness. I'm going to give you a chance to be reasonable...Snud (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

File:Nissen-2155 ubt.jpeg

Seasons greetings and best wishes for 2011! Boghog (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Guys! I hope that you both had a nice Christmas. Sadly I was very ill with a nasty virus, which was why I did not give out any Christmas well wishes this year, as I was too sick to do much of anything. Anyway I wish you both as well as your families a very Happy New Year!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Benzos

Happy Holidays! And please take a look at these IP edits if you haven't already. Doubtful, or not? Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Hordaland! I hope that you and your family had a nice Christmas. I was ill with a virus as you can read in above section but I am getting better now. Anyway I will take the opportunity to wish you and your family a very Happy New Year!

I am not sure the claims for the examples of benzodiazepines are accurate regarding subunit specificity. It is true that there are some relatively subtle differences between subunit binding for some of the benzodiazepines. There is more to it than that with regard to whether a benzodiazepine makes a good hypnotic or not, other properties are important such as elimination half life, speed of absorption and speed of crossing the blood brain barrier. The amnesia effect is more to do with alpha5 subunits, rather than alpha1, so that is one thing that is wrong. Boghog, above is very good person to ask on this angle of things. The edits seem to be uncited, so would mean WP:NOR policy would come into play.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Insisting on Negative Statements

Kindly refrain from insisting that blanket negative statements should be allowed in the Bio-identical Article. There is no possible documentation for these, since negatives are by nature unprovable. "There is no research that" is an impossible statement, since no one has read all the research and new research is forthcoming all the time. It is quite constructive to remove such statements from an article. There is no documentation that can support it. One might say that Dr. X claims there is no research."(EnochBethany (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Those statements are referenced and is the viewpoint of reviews of the literature and the viewpoint of medical bureaucracies. If new research emerges, then we can reference it, whether it be positive or negative.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:PHARM

Hey LG I am tempted to try to get a more consistent formatting in place across medication articles. Would value your opinion on how best to order/name these the sections.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit regarding the article on OCD

I believe the edit was regarding Howie Mandel, this was not meant as any sort of defamation, in fact the Wikipedia article about him mentions his OCD, though there is no mention of him on the OCD page. He has been on several talk shows including Howard Stern addressing this topic. This is also on his wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.69.129 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The recent edits regarding the quinolone article

Looks like all our work is down the drain again. Check out the recent edits on the quinolone articles. davidtfull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.92.203 (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it at some point. Really behind in a lot of things recently, due to quitting smoking and now down with virus so I don't have time for wikipedia. Hopefully will get some time in a couple of weeks. I hope all is well. By the way how did you go with quitting smoking? Are you still off?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not had time for wiki for quite some time either. As far as quiting smoking it has been a year and a half so far without a cigarette, so I think I got this licked. Hope you get back on your feet soon.Davidtfull (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done David! A year and a half is excellent! Did you get bad withdrawals? I had bad insomnia for 3 or 4 months after quitting and mood swings etc.

With regard to the quinolone article, it is only one article and issues shouldn't take a huge amount of time to resolve. I am still not quite over whatever bug I have. I really think since I quit smoking I take longer fighting virus's off, ugh.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry I can't help as I have no knowledge in the subject matter that these articles are about.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How to tell which brandname came first

Do you know of an easy way? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doc. It is just the original brand name(s) that the patent holder made when it first launched a product. For example, GlaxoSmithKline patented paroxetine and sold it under the brand names Paxil and in the UK Seroxat. The thing is that sometimes more than 1 brand name is used by patent holders. I think the last time this was discussed there was a rough consensus that the original brand name(s) by the the original patent holder used in English speaking countries should be listed in lead which is uaually one or two brand names only, occasionally 3. So basically you just need to find out who invented and marketed a drug and under what brand names they sold it. Dunno if this reply has helped or confused things further! :-P--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Any easy way to determine this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm,, not sure of an easy generic way of doing this. Maybe just some research on FDA.gov and medicines.org.uk? Merck Manual maybe??? For well known drugs a few simple google searches should be all that is needed to find out. Maybe it is worth posting over at Wiki Pharm Project and perhaps also Wiki Med Project.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed on edit war

LiteratureGeek, I am seeking advice on how to best deal with an edit war which has flowed from the Insite page onto the Supervised Injection Site page in the last week or so. I am not wanting to make the mistakes of last year (on the harm reduction page, where I reverted content too quickly in a content dispute), and this time I am ensuring that I am taking my time and giving even fuller rationales for any reversion of text which has no reasonable counter-rationale for being reverted by two other editors, Steinberger (who chiefly figured last time [1] - see the Section "Support for Safe Injecting Sites a Minority World View)" and DocJames, with whom you have conversed a number of times on this page over a number of years. You will see that while I generally take my time in replacing unreasonable reverts by these editors, they customarily revert my text within 12 hours. The discussion of these issues is here and here. It largely involves issues you resolved with Steinberger 13 months ago re use of reliable sources such as Drug Free Australia (non-peer-reviewed) and the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (demonstrably peer-reviewed as established by e-mail from its Editor here.

My question is whether you would suggest mediation or some other alternative at this point. I can't see any possibility in Requests for comment as it appears to require two editors to lodge such a request. Minphie (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As always your wisdom on matters would be appreciated. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I posted comments on the insite talk page and will watch list both articles and see if I can be of help.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LiteratureGeek, I don't believe we have made any progress in the reliable source dispute between Steinberger, OhioStandard, DocJames and myself now on three separate articles - Supervised injection site, Insite and Needle-exchange programme. All are unwilling to take the advice of third party input on the reliable sources noticeboard, to which recourse has been taken on four occasions. I think arbitration is the only answer at present as mediation wouldn't achieve anything that I can foresee. Your best advice appreciated. Minphie (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy is not exactly a third party. But yes I would appreciated LGs advice. Hopefully you are feeling better and have a little time to look into this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That is unfortunate that no progress has been made. I think wider community input may help with this dispute, via perhaps a request for comments? Arbitration seems a bit premature at this point. Yes starting to feel better, thanks Doc. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on making it to smoke free

Hope all is well and to see you returning to your old activity :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back Doc. Yes will probably be more active in future. Doing well, thanks. I hope that you are well to. :-) Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

This is just a quick visit to say "thank you" for encouraging me to edit the article on Methylphenidate. [2] I very much appreciate your help, and since I am neither a medical expert nor an experienced Wikipedia editor I would appreciate any guidance you can give as I make attempts to improve the article. My goal is to bring some balance to what I believe is a pejorative tone that seems to overemphasize the drug's risks while neglecting or downplaying its beneficial effects.

So, thank you for your help and if you can spare the time I would appreciate your oversight/guidance as I step into this unfamiliar territory.

Dgray xplane (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have a question for you: Can you point me to a drug article that you think is a good example of how such articles should be structured, so I can use it as a model for editing the Methylphenidate article? For example, should they begin with the history of the drug, its efficacy, uses and potential abuses, or chemical composition? I'd love to sink my teeth into this but could use a bit of guidance to help me get started. Dgray xplane (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome for the encouragement Dgray and thanks for your edits. :-) Bringing balance is important, but balance should be done according to reliable sources rather than what one editor's opinion of neutrality is; WP:MEDRS is a sourcing guideline for medical articles; the main thrust of it is to strive to use the most uptodate evidence utilising secondary sources, such as reviews and meta-analysis. If you need any more help with editing, feel welcome to ask. Sometimes it may take some time getting back to you, if I am busy off-line.

In relation to your second post, I can do better than that and point you towards an article structuring guideline, called WP:MEDMOS. :@-) There has been a past history of drama a couple of years ago on ADHD related articles and I welcome your enthusiastic but calm approach to this controversial area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In summary; to be a good editor of articles, to achieve WP:NEUTRALITY, appropriate WP:WEIGHT should be given to viewpoints according to their prominence in reliable sources. If prominent differing viewpoints are not included in articles they should be added to achieve neutrality according to their weight, although WP:FRINGE viewpoints should generally not be included, except in articles devoted to fringe topics. I hope this helps. Any more questions, feel welcome to ask me. Happy editing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there Literaturegeek, thanks for your support! I had a bit of time due to the holiday and did make a few small attempts. To give you a better sense of my frame of mind: I do think that article needs some balancing. While I understand the neutrality rule and will do my best to abide by it, it also seems that the people who are likely to have the most "editing energy" for a topic will probably be coming from one point of view or another. My initial "ire" which you noted, was because I noted a significant disparity between what I was seeing at relatively authoritative sources like WebMD, the NIH, NIMH and the article in question. In fact on examination of the articles listed as sources, I found that in many cases they appeared to be making points that were completely different than what was implied in the article. I come to Wikipedia for facts and balance. But I am not a disinterested party; I was doing research because my son has been diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed the medication. When I came across the Wikipedia article it read as a propaganda piece designed to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. In a former life I was a journalist, so maybe I just have a nose for that kind of thing. I had a feeling I was being manipulated. I don't have any kind of "propaganda agenda" myself. But frankly it did piss me off because I felt like Wikipedia had been hijacked. So while I am not disinterested, I do have an interest in seeing a neutral, factual article. I'm not sure I have the time (and I'm not sure I have the ability) to give the article the kind of complete revamp I think it needs. But I will give it a shot in small pieces, here and there, when I have a chance. I appreciate your help and support. And sorry I keep forgetting the tildes :) Dgray xplane (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job making a start on the article Dgray. With time I am sure we can improve the article. You are welcome for the help and support. There hasn't been anyone who has seriously edited that article for about 2 years or so; I pretty much gave up on following it myself. Unfortunately on heavily read articles drive by edits are made by uncommitted editors and gradually over time, some content becomes distorted and does not reflect what the references say or the article becomes increasingly biased/undue weighted to a particular viewpoint. I see where you are coming from and I agree that there is undue weight given to some views. I gave the article a scan over and my first thought is, do we really need a fairly lengthy section on Neil Bush and his anti-ritalin views? I think just one or perhaps two sentences are justified? How about chopping the Neil Bush text right down? It seems to be mostly duplicated text from the Neil Bush article anyway. Thoughts?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis from physical agents

Occurs due to there direct effect on mast cells.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry forgot to reply to this message.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Moclobemide, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Social phobia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Just to let you know, I am discussing the issue I brought up on the wikiproject:medicine page on the dispute resolution board and I mentioned the point you made so I included your name in who is involved. I just wanted to give you some notice so that you are aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the edits you made were incorrect. More than forty-seven countries internationally give DOs full practice rights so your change is a factual inaccuracy as was Hopping's and no consensus was agreed upon regarding DOs vs DO's so those edits were also not warranted. Please refrain from further reverts until consensus is reached and these disputes are fully resolved. Thanks in advance. DoctorK88 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DRN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Osteopathic Medicine in the United States". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hi. I replied. Have a good day. Psychiatrick (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you restore the text deleted by Dialectric? The text has been based on the journal World Psychiatry. There is the archive of World Psychiatry published by the World Psychiatric Association. So it is a reliable source. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you. --Psychiatrick (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, because the psychiatry article is meant to be a general over view as it is such a large topic area. There is already quite a lot of material which is negative towards psychiatry in the main psychiatry article. Adding more and more paragraphs of critical content risks giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain viewpoints. As stated content additions to the main psychiatry article should in general be brief summaries of important points as it is a very large topic area. If that text was to go anywhere on wikipedia, I would suggest it may be of relevance in critical psychiatry.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for my cookie. It tasted nice. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No

I think I was very civil and quite reasonable despite not receiving the same treatment. Some of your comments had an abrupt and unfriendly tone about them. DoctorK88 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I was brief as I did not want to get bogged down with unnecessarily long discussions. You have not come across friendly in my view, you blank messages off of your talk page, which is your perogative, but it is still not good form, civilly and I think you have got too passionate while editing, i.e. in content discussions, which is easy to do as I have done it myself before. You need to relax. Take care.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Brief, abrupt in tone, call it what you will. Also, do not revert my edits. I was granted permission to remove my comments by an administrator. I have been civil, I never said friendly though I was friendly in the beginning since no one had been unreasonable just yet and was met with uncalled for harsh responses. I was not overly passionate while editing, I think most of you were unreasonably resistant to making any changes from the get go and inconsistent in your objections. I blank messages off my talk space for everyone including bots that leave me automated messages because I have already read them and I do not like my talk page to have comments all over it. I do not use my talk page and once again, as I said, I will be retiring from wikipedia so please, seriously, do not respond, I'm not reading after this one but I will check to see if you have reverted my edits and if you continue to do so I will go to the admins and have them tell you that they approved my removal of my own comments. I am perfectly relaxed but drained from dealing with unreasonable editors which I no longer wish to do not to mention that editing wikipedia has been occupying far too much of my time and I am leaving to attend to higher priority matters. Please respect the admin's decision, thank you. DoctorK88 (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You can cross out what you have written but you are not able / supposed to remove it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Retired?

What happened? We need more editors like you... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, just busy with other things, I am still here, kind of sort of. I am only semi-retired; I made some contributions this morning, regarding tobacco dependence causing panic and agoraphobia, so I am not gone totally. I just added the semi retired template as for the past year or so I have not been regularly active; so that if people message me they know it may be a while before I get back to them.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While we definitely need you here. Hopefully you become more not less active with time :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Translation project

Hey LG. I am working on this translation project as described here in collaboration with Translators Without Borders Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project. The list of articles that we are working on is found here Book:Health care. Your help with improving some of these would be much appreciated. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doc, I only understand English, I don't know how I could help?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dale Dubin

Dear Literaturegeek, I have reopened the 2009 discussion at User talk:Draeco/Dubin. I would greatly appreciate your re-evaluation of the article. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Literaturegeek. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I would appreciate your input over at the RS/N which at present requires balanced input [3]. In a highly conflicted debate outside of Wikipedia, reflected as a highly conflicted debate on Wikipedia, I have found comments you have added previously to be balanced. Can you assist? Minphie (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

MDD

Glad to see you taking this on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. When you recently edited Rasagiline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SIN-1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuklear for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — KC9TV 19:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)