![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Berchanhimez,
We appreciate your updating the Dextromethadone page. We noticed a few areas to further improve the description of dextromethadone. First, there is a typo and an incorrect date. Second, we suggest reversing the order of the second sentence and second half of the first sentence to allow better flow of information. Below is an account of recommended changes for your consideration.
• The sentence sequence is a bit off. Suggest reversing the order by moving up the second sentence; and hence updating the reference sequence of 3 and 4 • Typo correction: from “affect” to “effect” • Remove unnecessary and incorrect date: “As of October 2019” • Remove unnecessary “now” from the last sentence as the synthesis process has been available for quite some time
For ease of your review, the suggested revised version of this page, along with amended references is included.
Dextromethadone (developmental code name REL-1017) is the (S)-enantiomer of methadone.[1] It acts as an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antagonist.[2] The compound also has affinity for opioid receptors,[3]but has less effect on the respiratory rate and less addiction potential than racemic methadone.[4] Dextromethadone is under development for the treatment of major depressive disorder.[1] There is an asymmetric synthesis[5] available to prepare both dextromethadone (S-(+)-methadone) and levomethadone (R-(−)-methadone).[6]
References[edit] 1. ^ Jump up to:a b https://adisinsight.springer.com/drugs/800038927 2. ^ Jump up to:a b Gorman AL, Elliott KJ, Inturrisi CE (February 1997). "The d- and l-isomers of methadone bind to the non-competitive site on the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor in rat forebrain and spinal cord". Neurosci. Lett. 223 (1): 5–8. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(97)13391-2. PMID 9058409. 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Codd EE, Shank RP, Schupsky JJ, Raffa RB (1995). "Serotonin and norepinephrine uptake inhibiting activity of centrally acting analgesics: structural determinants and role in antinociception". J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 274 (3): 1263–70. PMID 7562497. 4. ^ "METHADONE" (PDF). Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section. Drug Enforcement Agency. Retrieved 14 November 2020. 5. ^ Hull JD, Scheinmann F, Turner NJ (March 2003). "Synthesis of optically active methadones, LAAM and bufuralol by lipase-catalysed acylations". Tetrahedron: Asymmetry. 14 (5): 567–576. doi:10.1016/S0957-4166(03)00019-3. 6. ^ US patent 6143933
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Daisy Ng-Mak VP, Value Strategy & HEOR Relmada Therapeutics, Inc. Dng-mak@relmada.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dngmak ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Intramuscular injection at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Bait30
Talk 2 me pls? 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the first phrase of the article, the one that Google shows in its snippet, thus quite an important one.
<<< Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. >>>
It does not make much sense. I would rather prefer one of the following:
(a) Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicines. (b) Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific medicine. (c) Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a alternative medicine.
Thank you for your work
Zaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelidar ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Intramuscular injection at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk) 22:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
On 7 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Intramuscular injection, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that vaccines are commonly administered via intramuscular injection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Intramuscular injection. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Intramuscular injection), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
2020 is behind us at last. Off Wikipedia, the year has been trying. On Wikipedia, I hope you've found the time you spent here fulfilling and diverting. I've taken the opportunity to place a few end-of-year statistics for reflection below. If you think of any data that would be useful to find (or begin gathering) to gauge the project's success, please let me know. With that, here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
Year in Review
With 2020 now in the rear view mirror, a few numbers to give a sense of where our project is at: In 2020 we added a record number of medicine articles (i.e. articles with the WP:MED tag on their talk pages), starting the year with 41,243 and ending with 45,247. The ~4,000 new articles is
well above the norm, presumably due to new covid-related articles. In terms of reviewed content, we added three featured articles (
Dementia with Lewy bodies,
Complete blood count, and
Buruli ulcer), and lost three to the ravages of time, leaving our total at 66. We also added 42 newly reviewed good articles from 23 different nominators, bringing our total to 296. See a full list of reviewed content from 2020
here. Outside of reviewed content our contributions are more challenging to measure. I'm sure much our time was spent making small improvements, guiding new editors, removing junk from articles, and dealing with the raging global pandemic (on and off the site). I am interested in ways we can quantify and assess our project's progress going forward, so if anyone has ideas for other data we could find or collect, do let me know.
Other notes
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in there. I wasn't offended at all. Some users are simply not cutout for the collaborative environment. Possibly ( talk) 03:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Possibly (
talk) 20:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting your snarky edit since it really did piss me off. I am an experienced editor and I've done a lot of work at the pregnancy and breastfeeding articles. If you go back and look at the now ancient discussions back when Colin, MastCell, and Waid set things up, it was understood that a primary source may sometimes be used with caution. Admittedly, "with caution" does not mean the way I used it with its own heading and the editor that reverted it was correct in their action, so there was no reason for me to argue my case on the tp. But I've used advise from Waid for years because she is the best of the best we've got and may be able to help me add perhaps a couple of sentences. You need not respond to me as I have no desire to discuss this further. Gandydancer ( talk) 00:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy February everyone. I hope the new year is starting to look better than the last one did. As always, if you have any ideas to improve the newsletter, please post them at
the talkpage. Otherwise, here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
injections of accessibility
Thank you for quality articles around medicine such as injector pen, intramuscular injection and epidural administration, for "I do my best now to fix problems when I see them and can" for accessibility, especially WP:DTT, for appreciation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2560 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
I noticed some of your editing, and thought it exceptional. While this particular barnstar may lend itself more toward article editing, I also appreciate various posts you've made in multiple discussions as well. Thank you for your efforts here. — Ched ( talk) 07:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thank you for what you said for RexxS -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Your obviously an experienced editor. Just a friendly reminder to assume good faith. Several of the sources mentioned are on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources. One local source was an Associated Press wire story. I supposed reputability is always subjective, based on one's perspective, and part of a discussion. But making accusations about about whether someone has a read or not read a source really isn't necessary to support your argument. :) Here's a cold one on me. Minnemeeples ( talk) 19:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Minnemeeples ( talk) has given you a wiki free beer of your choice to wiki drink. This user advises you to not get too wiki-drunk or you could get a wiki-hangover. See Wikipedia:Free beer for more info or give some one a free wiki beer with {{ subst:freebeer}} |
I had considered using former, but I believe the use of "ex-" is reasonable because according to Wiktionary, it has the same meaning as former, and is not necessarily a negative. Merriam-Webster's page on Ex also states that ex- means "one that formerly held a specified position or place." In that sense, whatever negative meaning it imparts is merely assumed by others, not enforced or introduced by us. That is why I think it's reasonable to use it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 19:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Very strange for you to come onto my page randomly because I complained to another user about disrespectful comments being made towards me. Have you considered that Alexbrn had just accused me of stalking prior to my comment about the disrespect, or that he had falsely accused me of being a meat puppet, or that he had told me to piss off? Its important to avoid selective enforcement. Thank you. Gsonnenf ( talk) 19:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I respect you as a fellow medical professional and Wikipedia editor. As I have said to ToBeFree, I agree the topic of COVID-19 origins fall under WP:MEDRS, and while WHO team’s report is MEDRS, it does not include forensic or phylogenetic evidence. Scientists like Richard Ebright have called for a forensic investigation since May of last year [1]. David Relman in November [2]. Even Marc Lipsitch broke his silence [3]. We are now in controversy territory. Care is advised.
You seem to be advocating for administrators to use special provision of Wikipedia policy to place indiscriminate topic bans, in WP:AN [4] and WP:MEDICINE [5]. You are not the only medical professional on Wikipedia and it behooves you to discuss MEDRS with us in good faith instead of accusing us of disruption and advocating for topic bans where they are not due. The WHO is not a cathedral and science is not a religion. The WHO can make retractions and addendums as with any MEDRS, and if they didn’t ever do they, they wouldn’t be a MEDRS. The WHO DG’s remarks are clearly an addendum to the WHO team’s report, acknowledging its faults.
You and I probably agree on most things, but If we disagree that the WHO team’s report can be read without the WHO DG’s remarks, then we can go to an RFC. I will assure that a representative from the WHO participates in the RFC, as per [6]. Feel free to email me. CutePeach ( talk) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about a comment you made at the RS noticeboard: "I think it was unhelpful to start this RfC before crafting it in such a way that it not only can be discussed adequately, but can be controlled and useful."
How does one construct an RFC in such a way that it can be controlled and useful? Based on what I've seen at Wikipedia, if involved editors are determined to dominate a RFC that can't be prevented, because there is no way to control who comments in what sections of a page. I think that outcome was likely inevitable in the current RFC no matter what way Ferahgo the Assassin chose to structure it. But I could be wrong. If there is a way to construct an RFC so that outcome can be prevented, I'd like to understand it. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 11:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Please also see [7]. Whenever you have the time, your input there would be valuable. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 18:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on my draft and I note you have rejected it. I was very careful with copyright and plagiarism when I was researching the subject but will review all the source material again to be certain. I also read all the relevant Wikipedia policies on copyright and how to draft an article generally before commencing this work. Nonetheless, the suggestions around tone to be less "flowery" and more "encyclopaedic" are noted. Please note, the ANU/Australian History of Biography entry on James Gillies contains several factual errors which they are in the process of amending. Further improvements will be made to this article prior to re-submission.
You've filed complaints that do not rise to the level of DS-sanctionable. Several are not documented by the links you provide. I suggest you consider withdrawing this complaint to avoid a lot of needless colloquy, a lot more work on your part, and a possiblity of boomerang. Please consider. It's not interfering with editorial collaboration, and it's just not a big problem, even if you find it unbearably annoying. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
IMO, Be, you narrowly missed a TBAN at the AE filing you made against JzG. And yet your behavior continues unchanged. If you ever make another personal smear at another American Politics editor, I'd say it's quite likely you will be banned. Nobody wants to see this happen. Please concentrate on sourcing, policy and article text in your edits and comments. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla that have refused to respondis flatly and demonstrably false and I'd appreciate a ping whenever you impugn my integrity. soibangla ( talk) 18:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Berchanhimez, First, I want to tell you I appreciate all the help you have provided towards improving the FIGS (apparel) article so far. Can we continue the conversation at Talk:FIGS_(apparel) discussing the neutrality of the Marketing section? I would love to hear what you have to say about improving the NPOV there. Thanks again for all your help. Todd at Figs ( talk) 11:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I hadn't seen the article that was deleted since probably 2018, I don't know exactly what was there but I can remember going to that page to help locate sources that I wanted to share, so I think it had a lot of secondary sources, but I really don't know, as I don't think there's a way of looking at it. My suspicion is that many of the sources "broke" because it is a 25 year old organization and media sites move things around. With the draft I just made I think there are at least 20 secondary sources. I take it newspapers are particularly valued, there's about 10 of those references. There are many television references as well but just like newspapers they don't always keep their stories online, so some of them are YouTube links but they are from actual broadcasts from CTV and CBC, major news networks. I would definitely appreciate your help with this, as I think I must be missing something about sourcing. To me that article is sourced at much higher standard than anything I ever wrote for any of my three university degrees or articles I have had published in journals. I think it is great that Wikipedia has such high standards, but I have read the guidelines about the importance of sources and notability, and I have also looked at articles from similar organizations, and typically they don't come close. So, I'm a bit confused but ready to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian ( talk • contribs) 29 May 2021 03:45:33 (UTC)
Thanks, I am honestly not sure we are talking about the same draft?!? I feel that I have screwed up somehow. I just adjusted the references to it is more clear what they are, in case that's the problem. There's at least 7 newspaper articles, but I also don't quite understand, there are other newspaper articles about the organization, should I just keep listing them somewhere in the article? Like, do I add new content just so I can reference more articles even if I don't think that content would be good for the article? I only listed them if they supported content that seems to make sense. I understand that I can't just look to an article about other organizations because perhaps it is not a good article that just hasn't been reviewed, but 38 sources for a brief article, only one that is from the organization's website, I guess I would really appreciate an example of a similar organization that is done properly, so I can understand. I truly don't get it, I would really benefit from an example if that is possible. I will definitely work on improving it, I am just not sure how at this point. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, Games Done Quick is really nothing at all like LiveWorkPlay (they seem to do a video game racing fundraiser, sounds cool and a lot more likely to get media coverage than a charitable organization that actually works with marginalized people - but it seems to me that the notability concept is getting a bit twisted up - to be notable in one's field can look very different from being notable in another). You know more about it than I do, but surely locally-focused organizations tend to get local coverage? Unless the notability concept is suggesting that local just isn't notable, because unless LiveWorkPlay gets into a scandal or mass tragedy or something, it isn't going to make CNN. Anyway, I guess I will just pile on excessive amounts of references, I already added Globe and Mail, so I will just keep at it. Thanks. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! After working on this for 10 hours, it's nice to hear something positive. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I have run into an ongoing problem with a focus on my totally transparent and fully declared status as an employee of the organization, and despite getting help from others and ending up with what seems to be a very encyclopedic, very neutral, well sourced article, I am not sure where things stand - I am concerned that there's a punitive element to what has transpired. If and when you have a chance, if you could give the article the once over, that would be great. I feel all of the changes have been good and there's been some productive discussion mixed in with the personalized negativity. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I am not sure why I would mind if you directly edit, so the answer is please go ahead, for sure. I am just trying to figure out how after all the declaring of conflict of interest, agreeing to be labeled a paid contributor, and telling my whole story which is clearly evidenced by the facts, that I cannot just move ahead with trying to contribute, even after other editors have had a go. I can sort of see how my asking questions about the paid label has not been well received by some, so I figure the only defense against a punitive response is to continue doing what I am supposed to be doing - working at a neutral and properly sourced article with other non-involved contributors. Thanks, no rush, any contributions welcomed. Also, if you know someone with no backstory who can review it, I think that would be best Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! What I find challenging about some of this, is that even if I was writing or contributing to an article where I have no attachment whatsoever, I would not find any of that advertizey or puffy or whatnot... so it's not to do with my attachment to the topic, it is to do with the somewhat subjective and overall cultural norms here, which is fine, appreciate the help. Interesting development in the tea room as well, looks like some others are stepping up to say that the policy doesn't actually automatically designate someone who works for an organization as a paid editor, which really was all I was trying to say. I think perhaps a lot of people don't have experience with what it means to work for a community-based nonprofit where we do have paid jobs but are constantly doing all sorts of volunteerism and advocacy that is never going to be a part of a job evaluation and definitely not going to earn us an extra dime (I don't even have the possibility of a salary increase, bonus, whatever, even if I wrote the most spectacular article ever and it was featured on CNN) Iamthekanadian ( talk) 19:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that is awesome (the information and how you explained it). I will follow up as soon as I can. I guess the reality of the black hat sort of people ruining Wikipedia has a lot of experienced people on edge and that's why some have been so aggressive or even accusatory, it's just so over the top if they knew the context on my end, they would laugh along with me. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Funny you should say, I actually did a couple of edits for a place I kayak and a place near where I live. I hope that's allowed, because my property values could go up as a result of promoting the neighbourhood. Seriously, I'd have more chance of benefiting that way than writing about where I work :-) Iamthekanadian ( talk) 21:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is getting wild. I am now reportedly getting stalked "off-Wiki" about this. What is it in someone that they see this couple of paragraphs about a charitable organization for people with intellectual disabilities and they invest so hard in attacking a contributor because they work for the organization? This is descending into madness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries, honestly, I'd prefer to have a Zoom call with everyone and anyone on Wikipedia who has concerns about me, they can meet my entire board, and talk about this like human beings instead of petulant children. This is madness. Thanks, farewell. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 23:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
No newsletter last month means a double issue this month. Enjoy:
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: "There's a page somewhere (maybe an essay) that explains why the rest of that quote is useless - someone's rebuttal to potentially negative information is expected and is not to be taken to mean the information is false", the page is WP:MANDY. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Berchanhimez:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 3200 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
Nothing this month |
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Berchanhimez. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Cavoodle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 05:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Berchanhimez,
We appreciate your updating the Dextromethadone page. We noticed a few areas to further improve the description of dextromethadone. First, there is a typo and an incorrect date. Second, we suggest reversing the order of the second sentence and second half of the first sentence to allow better flow of information. Below is an account of recommended changes for your consideration.
• The sentence sequence is a bit off. Suggest reversing the order by moving up the second sentence; and hence updating the reference sequence of 3 and 4 • Typo correction: from “affect” to “effect” • Remove unnecessary and incorrect date: “As of October 2019” • Remove unnecessary “now” from the last sentence as the synthesis process has been available for quite some time
For ease of your review, the suggested revised version of this page, along with amended references is included.
Dextromethadone (developmental code name REL-1017) is the (S)-enantiomer of methadone.[1] It acts as an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antagonist.[2] The compound also has affinity for opioid receptors,[3]but has less effect on the respiratory rate and less addiction potential than racemic methadone.[4] Dextromethadone is under development for the treatment of major depressive disorder.[1] There is an asymmetric synthesis[5] available to prepare both dextromethadone (S-(+)-methadone) and levomethadone (R-(−)-methadone).[6]
References[edit] 1. ^ Jump up to:a b https://adisinsight.springer.com/drugs/800038927 2. ^ Jump up to:a b Gorman AL, Elliott KJ, Inturrisi CE (February 1997). "The d- and l-isomers of methadone bind to the non-competitive site on the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor in rat forebrain and spinal cord". Neurosci. Lett. 223 (1): 5–8. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(97)13391-2. PMID 9058409. 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Codd EE, Shank RP, Schupsky JJ, Raffa RB (1995). "Serotonin and norepinephrine uptake inhibiting activity of centrally acting analgesics: structural determinants and role in antinociception". J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 274 (3): 1263–70. PMID 7562497. 4. ^ "METHADONE" (PDF). Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section. Drug Enforcement Agency. Retrieved 14 November 2020. 5. ^ Hull JD, Scheinmann F, Turner NJ (March 2003). "Synthesis of optically active methadones, LAAM and bufuralol by lipase-catalysed acylations". Tetrahedron: Asymmetry. 14 (5): 567–576. doi:10.1016/S0957-4166(03)00019-3. 6. ^ US patent 6143933
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Daisy Ng-Mak VP, Value Strategy & HEOR Relmada Therapeutics, Inc. Dng-mak@relmada.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dngmak ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Intramuscular injection at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Bait30
Talk 2 me pls? 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the first phrase of the article, the one that Google shows in its snippet, thus quite an important one.
<<< Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. >>>
It does not make much sense. I would rather prefer one of the following:
(a) Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicines. (b) Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific medicine. (c) Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a alternative medicine.
Thank you for your work
Zaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelidar ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Intramuscular injection at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk) 22:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
On 7 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Intramuscular injection, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that vaccines are commonly administered via intramuscular injection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Intramuscular injection. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Intramuscular injection), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
2020 is behind us at last. Off Wikipedia, the year has been trying. On Wikipedia, I hope you've found the time you spent here fulfilling and diverting. I've taken the opportunity to place a few end-of-year statistics for reflection below. If you think of any data that would be useful to find (or begin gathering) to gauge the project's success, please let me know. With that, here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
Year in Review
With 2020 now in the rear view mirror, a few numbers to give a sense of where our project is at: In 2020 we added a record number of medicine articles (i.e. articles with the WP:MED tag on their talk pages), starting the year with 41,243 and ending with 45,247. The ~4,000 new articles is
well above the norm, presumably due to new covid-related articles. In terms of reviewed content, we added three featured articles (
Dementia with Lewy bodies,
Complete blood count, and
Buruli ulcer), and lost three to the ravages of time, leaving our total at 66. We also added 42 newly reviewed good articles from 23 different nominators, bringing our total to 296. See a full list of reviewed content from 2020
here. Outside of reviewed content our contributions are more challenging to measure. I'm sure much our time was spent making small improvements, guiding new editors, removing junk from articles, and dealing with the raging global pandemic (on and off the site). I am interested in ways we can quantify and assess our project's progress going forward, so if anyone has ideas for other data we could find or collect, do let me know.
Other notes
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in there. I wasn't offended at all. Some users are simply not cutout for the collaborative environment. Possibly ( talk) 03:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Possibly (
talk) 20:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting your snarky edit since it really did piss me off. I am an experienced editor and I've done a lot of work at the pregnancy and breastfeeding articles. If you go back and look at the now ancient discussions back when Colin, MastCell, and Waid set things up, it was understood that a primary source may sometimes be used with caution. Admittedly, "with caution" does not mean the way I used it with its own heading and the editor that reverted it was correct in their action, so there was no reason for me to argue my case on the tp. But I've used advise from Waid for years because she is the best of the best we've got and may be able to help me add perhaps a couple of sentences. You need not respond to me as I have no desire to discuss this further. Gandydancer ( talk) 00:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy February everyone. I hope the new year is starting to look better than the last one did. As always, if you have any ideas to improve the newsletter, please post them at
the talkpage. Otherwise, here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
injections of accessibility
Thank you for quality articles around medicine such as injector pen, intramuscular injection and epidural administration, for "I do my best now to fix problems when I see them and can" for accessibility, especially WP:DTT, for appreciation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2560 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
I noticed some of your editing, and thought it exceptional. While this particular barnstar may lend itself more toward article editing, I also appreciate various posts you've made in multiple discussions as well. Thank you for your efforts here. — Ched ( talk) 07:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thank you for what you said for RexxS -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Your obviously an experienced editor. Just a friendly reminder to assume good faith. Several of the sources mentioned are on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources. One local source was an Associated Press wire story. I supposed reputability is always subjective, based on one's perspective, and part of a discussion. But making accusations about about whether someone has a read or not read a source really isn't necessary to support your argument. :) Here's a cold one on me. Minnemeeples ( talk) 19:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Minnemeeples ( talk) has given you a wiki free beer of your choice to wiki drink. This user advises you to not get too wiki-drunk or you could get a wiki-hangover. See Wikipedia:Free beer for more info or give some one a free wiki beer with {{ subst:freebeer}} |
I had considered using former, but I believe the use of "ex-" is reasonable because according to Wiktionary, it has the same meaning as former, and is not necessarily a negative. Merriam-Webster's page on Ex also states that ex- means "one that formerly held a specified position or place." In that sense, whatever negative meaning it imparts is merely assumed by others, not enforced or introduced by us. That is why I think it's reasonable to use it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 19:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Very strange for you to come onto my page randomly because I complained to another user about disrespectful comments being made towards me. Have you considered that Alexbrn had just accused me of stalking prior to my comment about the disrespect, or that he had falsely accused me of being a meat puppet, or that he had told me to piss off? Its important to avoid selective enforcement. Thank you. Gsonnenf ( talk) 19:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I respect you as a fellow medical professional and Wikipedia editor. As I have said to ToBeFree, I agree the topic of COVID-19 origins fall under WP:MEDRS, and while WHO team’s report is MEDRS, it does not include forensic or phylogenetic evidence. Scientists like Richard Ebright have called for a forensic investigation since May of last year [1]. David Relman in November [2]. Even Marc Lipsitch broke his silence [3]. We are now in controversy territory. Care is advised.
You seem to be advocating for administrators to use special provision of Wikipedia policy to place indiscriminate topic bans, in WP:AN [4] and WP:MEDICINE [5]. You are not the only medical professional on Wikipedia and it behooves you to discuss MEDRS with us in good faith instead of accusing us of disruption and advocating for topic bans where they are not due. The WHO is not a cathedral and science is not a religion. The WHO can make retractions and addendums as with any MEDRS, and if they didn’t ever do they, they wouldn’t be a MEDRS. The WHO DG’s remarks are clearly an addendum to the WHO team’s report, acknowledging its faults.
You and I probably agree on most things, but If we disagree that the WHO team’s report can be read without the WHO DG’s remarks, then we can go to an RFC. I will assure that a representative from the WHO participates in the RFC, as per [6]. Feel free to email me. CutePeach ( talk) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about a comment you made at the RS noticeboard: "I think it was unhelpful to start this RfC before crafting it in such a way that it not only can be discussed adequately, but can be controlled and useful."
How does one construct an RFC in such a way that it can be controlled and useful? Based on what I've seen at Wikipedia, if involved editors are determined to dominate a RFC that can't be prevented, because there is no way to control who comments in what sections of a page. I think that outcome was likely inevitable in the current RFC no matter what way Ferahgo the Assassin chose to structure it. But I could be wrong. If there is a way to construct an RFC so that outcome can be prevented, I'd like to understand it. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 11:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Please also see [7]. Whenever you have the time, your input there would be valuable. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 18:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on my draft and I note you have rejected it. I was very careful with copyright and plagiarism when I was researching the subject but will review all the source material again to be certain. I also read all the relevant Wikipedia policies on copyright and how to draft an article generally before commencing this work. Nonetheless, the suggestions around tone to be less "flowery" and more "encyclopaedic" are noted. Please note, the ANU/Australian History of Biography entry on James Gillies contains several factual errors which they are in the process of amending. Further improvements will be made to this article prior to re-submission.
You've filed complaints that do not rise to the level of DS-sanctionable. Several are not documented by the links you provide. I suggest you consider withdrawing this complaint to avoid a lot of needless colloquy, a lot more work on your part, and a possiblity of boomerang. Please consider. It's not interfering with editorial collaboration, and it's just not a big problem, even if you find it unbearably annoying. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
IMO, Be, you narrowly missed a TBAN at the AE filing you made against JzG. And yet your behavior continues unchanged. If you ever make another personal smear at another American Politics editor, I'd say it's quite likely you will be banned. Nobody wants to see this happen. Please concentrate on sourcing, policy and article text in your edits and comments. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla that have refused to respondis flatly and demonstrably false and I'd appreciate a ping whenever you impugn my integrity. soibangla ( talk) 18:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Berchanhimez, First, I want to tell you I appreciate all the help you have provided towards improving the FIGS (apparel) article so far. Can we continue the conversation at Talk:FIGS_(apparel) discussing the neutrality of the Marketing section? I would love to hear what you have to say about improving the NPOV there. Thanks again for all your help. Todd at Figs ( talk) 11:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I hadn't seen the article that was deleted since probably 2018, I don't know exactly what was there but I can remember going to that page to help locate sources that I wanted to share, so I think it had a lot of secondary sources, but I really don't know, as I don't think there's a way of looking at it. My suspicion is that many of the sources "broke" because it is a 25 year old organization and media sites move things around. With the draft I just made I think there are at least 20 secondary sources. I take it newspapers are particularly valued, there's about 10 of those references. There are many television references as well but just like newspapers they don't always keep their stories online, so some of them are YouTube links but they are from actual broadcasts from CTV and CBC, major news networks. I would definitely appreciate your help with this, as I think I must be missing something about sourcing. To me that article is sourced at much higher standard than anything I ever wrote for any of my three university degrees or articles I have had published in journals. I think it is great that Wikipedia has such high standards, but I have read the guidelines about the importance of sources and notability, and I have also looked at articles from similar organizations, and typically they don't come close. So, I'm a bit confused but ready to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian ( talk • contribs) 29 May 2021 03:45:33 (UTC)
Thanks, I am honestly not sure we are talking about the same draft?!? I feel that I have screwed up somehow. I just adjusted the references to it is more clear what they are, in case that's the problem. There's at least 7 newspaper articles, but I also don't quite understand, there are other newspaper articles about the organization, should I just keep listing them somewhere in the article? Like, do I add new content just so I can reference more articles even if I don't think that content would be good for the article? I only listed them if they supported content that seems to make sense. I understand that I can't just look to an article about other organizations because perhaps it is not a good article that just hasn't been reviewed, but 38 sources for a brief article, only one that is from the organization's website, I guess I would really appreciate an example of a similar organization that is done properly, so I can understand. I truly don't get it, I would really benefit from an example if that is possible. I will definitely work on improving it, I am just not sure how at this point. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, Games Done Quick is really nothing at all like LiveWorkPlay (they seem to do a video game racing fundraiser, sounds cool and a lot more likely to get media coverage than a charitable organization that actually works with marginalized people - but it seems to me that the notability concept is getting a bit twisted up - to be notable in one's field can look very different from being notable in another). You know more about it than I do, but surely locally-focused organizations tend to get local coverage? Unless the notability concept is suggesting that local just isn't notable, because unless LiveWorkPlay gets into a scandal or mass tragedy or something, it isn't going to make CNN. Anyway, I guess I will just pile on excessive amounts of references, I already added Globe and Mail, so I will just keep at it. Thanks. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! After working on this for 10 hours, it's nice to hear something positive. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I have run into an ongoing problem with a focus on my totally transparent and fully declared status as an employee of the organization, and despite getting help from others and ending up with what seems to be a very encyclopedic, very neutral, well sourced article, I am not sure where things stand - I am concerned that there's a punitive element to what has transpired. If and when you have a chance, if you could give the article the once over, that would be great. I feel all of the changes have been good and there's been some productive discussion mixed in with the personalized negativity. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I am not sure why I would mind if you directly edit, so the answer is please go ahead, for sure. I am just trying to figure out how after all the declaring of conflict of interest, agreeing to be labeled a paid contributor, and telling my whole story which is clearly evidenced by the facts, that I cannot just move ahead with trying to contribute, even after other editors have had a go. I can sort of see how my asking questions about the paid label has not been well received by some, so I figure the only defense against a punitive response is to continue doing what I am supposed to be doing - working at a neutral and properly sourced article with other non-involved contributors. Thanks, no rush, any contributions welcomed. Also, if you know someone with no backstory who can review it, I think that would be best Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! What I find challenging about some of this, is that even if I was writing or contributing to an article where I have no attachment whatsoever, I would not find any of that advertizey or puffy or whatnot... so it's not to do with my attachment to the topic, it is to do with the somewhat subjective and overall cultural norms here, which is fine, appreciate the help. Interesting development in the tea room as well, looks like some others are stepping up to say that the policy doesn't actually automatically designate someone who works for an organization as a paid editor, which really was all I was trying to say. I think perhaps a lot of people don't have experience with what it means to work for a community-based nonprofit where we do have paid jobs but are constantly doing all sorts of volunteerism and advocacy that is never going to be a part of a job evaluation and definitely not going to earn us an extra dime (I don't even have the possibility of a salary increase, bonus, whatever, even if I wrote the most spectacular article ever and it was featured on CNN) Iamthekanadian ( talk) 19:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that is awesome (the information and how you explained it). I will follow up as soon as I can. I guess the reality of the black hat sort of people ruining Wikipedia has a lot of experienced people on edge and that's why some have been so aggressive or even accusatory, it's just so over the top if they knew the context on my end, they would laugh along with me. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Funny you should say, I actually did a couple of edits for a place I kayak and a place near where I live. I hope that's allowed, because my property values could go up as a result of promoting the neighbourhood. Seriously, I'd have more chance of benefiting that way than writing about where I work :-) Iamthekanadian ( talk) 21:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is getting wild. I am now reportedly getting stalked "off-Wiki" about this. What is it in someone that they see this couple of paragraphs about a charitable organization for people with intellectual disabilities and they invest so hard in attacking a contributor because they work for the organization? This is descending into madness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries, honestly, I'd prefer to have a Zoom call with everyone and anyone on Wikipedia who has concerns about me, they can meet my entire board, and talk about this like human beings instead of petulant children. This is madness. Thanks, farewell. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 23:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
No newsletter last month means a double issue this month. Enjoy:
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: "There's a page somewhere (maybe an essay) that explains why the rest of that quote is useless - someone's rebuttal to potentially negative information is expected and is not to be taken to mean the information is false", the page is WP:MANDY. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Berchanhimez:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 3200 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
Nothing this month |
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
|
|
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Berchanhimez. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Cavoodle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 05:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)