![]() | This 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. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | → | Archive 160 |
Doc James, the following pages are in my opinion problematic: Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Splenic marginal zone lymphoma, and Nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma. However, all of these lymphomas are classified as marginal zone lymphomas; marginal zone B-cell lymphoma and malt lymphoma are the same disease; and marginal zone B-cell lymphoma correctly describes the disease as comprised of three forms, nodal marginal zone B-cell NHL, extanodal marginal zone B-cell NHL, and splenic marginal zone B-cell NHL but these three forms are now termed nodal marginal zone lymphoma, extanodal marginal lymphoma, and splenic marginal zone lymphoma. It might be better to consolidate these four pages into a single page termed Marginal Zone Lymphomas. I have written the following introductory pagraphs for such a new page:
"Marginal zone lymphomas (MZL) are a heterogeneous group of lymphomas that derive from the malignant transformation of marginal zone B-cells. These cells are lymphocytes of the B-cell line that reside in the marginal zones of the germinal centers of lymph nodes and spleen. [1] They are innate lymphoid cells that normally function by mounting rapid antibody-forming immune responses to antigens such as those presented by infectious agents and damaged self-tissues. [2]
"In 2016, the World Health Organization classified the marginal zone lymphomas into three different forms. 1) Extranodal marginal zone lymphomas (EMZL, also termed MALT lymphoma) are lymphomas of
mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), i.e. the
mucous membranes that line the surface of the stomach and/or less frequently other sites throughout the body. Cases of EMZL that involve the stomach have also been termed gastric MALT lymphoma
[3] and gastric MZL.
[1] 2) Nodal marginal zone lymphomas (NMZ) are lymphomas that are confined to lymph nodes,
bone marrow, and blood.
[1] 3) Splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) are lymphomas confined to the spleen, bone marrow and blood..
[1] While all of these forms involve the same type of malignant B-cells, they show differences in their
pathophysiology, distinctly different tissue involvements and clinical presentations, and somewhat different prognoses and recommended therapeutic treatments.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
"Marginal zone lymphomas represent 5-17% of all Non-Hodgkin lymphomas with the extranodal, nodal, and splenic forms accounting for 50-70%, ~10%, and ~20% of all MZL cases. [3] These lymphomas MZL occur primarily in older patients (median age 65-68 years) and usually are indolent diseases that often can be treated initially by a watchful waiting strategy. However, nodal MZL carries a somewhat worse prognosis [1] and any of the three MZL subtypes may progress to a more aggressive disease at a relatively low rate, e.g. about 3-5% over an extended period of observation. [4] Many cases of extranodal MZL appear to be caused by the chronic simulation of the immune system by chronic inflammation such as that caused by bacteria infections and autoimmune diseases. [5] The associations of gastric malt lymphoma with helicobacter pylori infection of the stomach [5] and extranodal MZL of salivary glands with Sjögren syndrome-related inflammation of these glands [6] are prominent and well-documented examples of this relationship."
References
Hi. I noticed that you recently edited this article ( Borderline personality disorder). Another editor recently edited the article 22 times in a row after your last edit on this article. I noticed that person's last edit was unnecessarily wordy ( diff here). The same editor has made a number of other changes (to the article), including what seems to be adding symptoms of BPD that were not previously in the article. Also, another edit changed two wikilinks from "Psychosis" to "Reality" here and here. The editor also changed a wikilink for "Depression (mood)" to "Bipolar disorder|manic depression" here. And so on. There are probably other instances I am not mentioning. I'm wondering if you or, someone else familiar with the topic, could check the accuracy of these edits. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems you regularly revert additions to the Baclofen article whenever people make misguided attempts to mention its purported uses wrt alcoholism treatment. Yet when I place in a small reference to the negative findings from the University of Amsterdam (research which is mentioned in the article, as if it is yet to happen) in an attempt to curb this speculation, you hastily revert it as well, bundled in with the other edits? If you don't think the source is high quality enough, advise a better one. Or at least give a good explanation for the revert so I can fix it up. It's absurd to leave a mention of something as if it is yet to happen, when in fact the research took place years ago (yes, I know "yet to occur" things that have already happened lurk all over the Wiki -- and yes, it makes articles look stale and sloppy). As is, it just makes it look like the University of Amsterdam just got a $750,000 windfall and the solution to alcoholism might be right around the corner. It's too optimistic.
Please take a little more care to read the sources provided for edits properly before summarily and hastily reverting edits. You incorrectly reverted my edit twice because you hadn't taken the time to read the source properly. I have reverted both of your 'reverts'. It would help us both not to waste each other's time like this. Thanks Fortnum ( talk) 13:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Those symptoms are the DSM criteria. There are other diagnostic criteria, such as ICD-10
https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/F01-F99/F90-F98/F90-/F90.9 - Chrisvacc ( talk) 19:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Can I ask you to take a look at ticket:2019082810006731
The requester suggested it be deleted although in fairness did suggest another option.
I think they may be right but it is not my area of expertise (coincidentally, I had a visit from a vet today, but the subject was another vet, not the practice per se.)
My concern is that this may not be a simple edit.
My supposition was that this article, created in 2003, was originally titled "veterinarian" and someone moved it to "veterinary physician". However, I looked at the move log, and I see a move from "veterinary physician" to "veterinarian", but no other moves. I must be missing something.
There is also collateral issues as the term is also used in Veterinary medicine in the United States. S Philbrick (Talk)
Doc James, wouldnt it be a good idea to create an infobox [3] specifically for signs/symptoms... example- Category:Symptoms and signs: Nervous system (Id go ahead and do it, I just don't know how to produce the page)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, J - if a police report says a person died from multiple dog bites, that is not actually the ‘’cause’’ of death is it? I would think the person suffered multiple dog bites but the actual cause of death would be something like the carotid artery was severed and victim ‘’bled to death’’, or died of ‘’cardiac arrest’’, or something like that, correct? The bite itself doesn’t kill you, does it? (Forgive my laypersonitis) Atsme Talk 📧 14:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This request is prompted by an OTRS message but frankly you don't even have to read the message. ticket:2019082910008442
I removed a sentence from Esophageal spasm on the basis that it was unsourced. However, I note that the entire treatment section, which includes fairly specific and significant suggestions, is unsourced. I mulled over removing the entire section as unsourced but if it's all good advice, the better option of course is to add appropriate sources.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doc. I'm contacting you about this as I've gathered from previous work done by you at Keratoconus and elsewhere that you're experienced in this area. The edits made by Deeshant_Sharma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Keratoconus and Andrew Lam (ophthalmologist) reek of self-promotion. What do you think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 22:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, my edit to the MDMA page, which you reverted, was made after reading the source material quoted in full. Since it was a meta analysis, I also read all of the source material contributing to that study, which took a few hours, before I made any changes. The edits I made were factually correct, the info I added was not already on the MDMA page, and the point I was making is explained multiple times in the source material. If the source is accurate enough to prove the points being made in the first place, it must follow that it is also sufficient to prove the point I was making. The source material specified made it clear that (specifically) polydrug users and those with pre-existing depressive illness were not screened out of the study, which was partly based on casualty visits made by people self reporting polydrug use. There is not (and there can not be) any conclusive proof that MDMA was solely, or even partially, responsible for causing any ongoing depressive illness, without the prior exclusion of every other potential causative factor in test subjects. As I'm sure you are aware, this is not currently possible, firstly due to the illegality of any such research being undertaken, and subsequently because the only viable test subjects available have, in the majority of cases, used more than one drug before presenting at casualty. Pre-existing depressive illness is also discussed in the source material, which states that the 'chicken and egg' paradox applies in this case: Is it likely that depression may have occurred in the absence of the drug? Are people with depression more likely to attempt to self-medicate by using MDMA in the first place? These are all moot points which are not just 'unknown', but currently 'unknowable'. Measurable chemical changes thought to be produced directly by MDMA are reversible in humans, a process which is completed within a week of commencing abstinence of MDMA, in almost all cases. Baseline levels are ('normally') restored within 24-48 hours. Even the oft cited 'tuesday blues' effect, some days after taking MDMA, has defied all attempts to quantify or measure it. Chemically and functionally, there is no measurable deficit, and no reason to expect any deficit to occur many days after the drug and all active metabolites have been excreted. What would the mechanism of action be to cause such effects long after leaving the system? Why do the symptoms not manifest earlier? Chemical cascades leading to apoptosis would again have been completed days before. The doses used in tests on rats and mice are almost invariably colossal and have been administered for prolonged periods without any period of abstinence, conditions which would be extremely unlikely to occur in even the most determined of humans. Nevertheless, the damage caused to rat and mice brains is often cited without adequate explanation, and used as an analogue for human brain matter, which it is provably not.
The causes of Major depressive illness are still not well understood, but inasmuch as it isattributable, the root causes are multi-factorial and highly complex. Therefore it is impossible (and frankly disingenuous) at this time to make implications that the two things (MDMA and persistent depressive illness) are positively correlated. The exclusion of that critically important - if not fundamental - caveat from any explanation of the sources seems to me to be both morally and factually wrong, and the highly selective nature of what is included, or not, is a perfect case for why such issues should not be decided arbitrarily by any one user (ie yourself). I have not yet restored the page to include my additions, and I won't until you've had adequate time to reply. With all the above in mind, what possible reason did you have for the wholesale removal of my additions to the page? Please be aware that I will not be drawn into any kind of 'flame war' with you. If after reading this and replying, we still disagree about the edits, I suggest we take it to arbitration where independent others can make the final decision. Thanks Codeye ( talk) 22:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Measles&diff=prev&oldid=913321369 again. It's embarrassing. Graham Beards ( talk) 21:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
You were the deleting admin for Thomas Max Wheelwright. I just came across User:Vips.vipulshah/sandbox and Draft:Thomas Max Wheelwright which look suspiciously like material that was previously deleted from Wikipedia because of hardcoded reference indicators like "[19]" which don;t link to actual references. It looks like displayed text that was copied from a deleted article. Is this similar in substance to the deleted article? This looks very much like undisclosed paid editing and possibly sockpuppetry. Thanks. --
Why do you change the allopregnanolone page? Allopregnanolone is not known scientifically as brexanolone...this is a Sage Pharmaceuticals trade name. Let's keep WIKI accurate, not an advertising platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Why do you continually change the allopregnanolone page? Allopregnanolone is not known scientifically as brexanolone...this is a Sage Pharmaceuticals trade name. Let's keep WIKI accurate, not an advertising platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You just can't keep from posting erroneous information! Are you being paid by Sage Pharmaceuticals? Brexanolone is indeed a trade name used by Sage, whereas the marketed form is called Zulresso. Please get your facts straight and stop changing the allo page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI:
Steroid hormone metabolites are barbiturate-like modulators of the GABA receptor. Maria Dorota Majewska, Neil L. Harrison, +2 authors Steven M PaulPublished in Science 1986 DOI:10.1126/science.2422758 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI:
https://www.empr.com/home/news/dea-schedules-postpartum-depression-treatment-zulresso/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Doc James. I’m reaching out on behalf of Neuronetics, a client of mine at Vault Communications. I appreciate your efforts and expertise as both a trusted and respected physician and editor on the page, and wanted to respectfully inquire about the banners that have been added to the top of the Neuronetics article. Might you be willing to connect with me on that within the Talk Page? If you prefer not to, can you kindly let me know and I’ll do my best to collaborate with other editors in the community in hopes of better understanding, and hopefully resolving, the current issues on the article page? I certainly understand how busy you are and know you may be focused elsewhere, but I wanted to reach out to you directly as my first step. Thanks for your time. MD at Vault Communications ( talk) 19:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, i just thought i should notify you of my contribution on Edd Branson article you moved to Draft space. I noticed that the original creater of the article is currently blocked on suspected paid editing, i then looked in the article and removed unsourced claims to clean it up as the tag suggested then moved it back into Article space. I then thought of notifying you as the Admin who is looking into that case. Gukura ( talk) 10:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | → | Archive 160 |
Doc James, the following pages are in my opinion problematic: Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Splenic marginal zone lymphoma, and Nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma. However, all of these lymphomas are classified as marginal zone lymphomas; marginal zone B-cell lymphoma and malt lymphoma are the same disease; and marginal zone B-cell lymphoma correctly describes the disease as comprised of three forms, nodal marginal zone B-cell NHL, extanodal marginal zone B-cell NHL, and splenic marginal zone B-cell NHL but these three forms are now termed nodal marginal zone lymphoma, extanodal marginal lymphoma, and splenic marginal zone lymphoma. It might be better to consolidate these four pages into a single page termed Marginal Zone Lymphomas. I have written the following introductory pagraphs for such a new page:
"Marginal zone lymphomas (MZL) are a heterogeneous group of lymphomas that derive from the malignant transformation of marginal zone B-cells. These cells are lymphocytes of the B-cell line that reside in the marginal zones of the germinal centers of lymph nodes and spleen. [1] They are innate lymphoid cells that normally function by mounting rapid antibody-forming immune responses to antigens such as those presented by infectious agents and damaged self-tissues. [2]
"In 2016, the World Health Organization classified the marginal zone lymphomas into three different forms. 1) Extranodal marginal zone lymphomas (EMZL, also termed MALT lymphoma) are lymphomas of
mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), i.e. the
mucous membranes that line the surface of the stomach and/or less frequently other sites throughout the body. Cases of EMZL that involve the stomach have also been termed gastric MALT lymphoma
[3] and gastric MZL.
[1] 2) Nodal marginal zone lymphomas (NMZ) are lymphomas that are confined to lymph nodes,
bone marrow, and blood.
[1] 3) Splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) are lymphomas confined to the spleen, bone marrow and blood..
[1] While all of these forms involve the same type of malignant B-cells, they show differences in their
pathophysiology, distinctly different tissue involvements and clinical presentations, and somewhat different prognoses and recommended therapeutic treatments.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
"Marginal zone lymphomas represent 5-17% of all Non-Hodgkin lymphomas with the extranodal, nodal, and splenic forms accounting for 50-70%, ~10%, and ~20% of all MZL cases. [3] These lymphomas MZL occur primarily in older patients (median age 65-68 years) and usually are indolent diseases that often can be treated initially by a watchful waiting strategy. However, nodal MZL carries a somewhat worse prognosis [1] and any of the three MZL subtypes may progress to a more aggressive disease at a relatively low rate, e.g. about 3-5% over an extended period of observation. [4] Many cases of extranodal MZL appear to be caused by the chronic simulation of the immune system by chronic inflammation such as that caused by bacteria infections and autoimmune diseases. [5] The associations of gastric malt lymphoma with helicobacter pylori infection of the stomach [5] and extranodal MZL of salivary glands with Sjögren syndrome-related inflammation of these glands [6] are prominent and well-documented examples of this relationship."
References
Hi. I noticed that you recently edited this article ( Borderline personality disorder). Another editor recently edited the article 22 times in a row after your last edit on this article. I noticed that person's last edit was unnecessarily wordy ( diff here). The same editor has made a number of other changes (to the article), including what seems to be adding symptoms of BPD that were not previously in the article. Also, another edit changed two wikilinks from "Psychosis" to "Reality" here and here. The editor also changed a wikilink for "Depression (mood)" to "Bipolar disorder|manic depression" here. And so on. There are probably other instances I am not mentioning. I'm wondering if you or, someone else familiar with the topic, could check the accuracy of these edits. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems you regularly revert additions to the Baclofen article whenever people make misguided attempts to mention its purported uses wrt alcoholism treatment. Yet when I place in a small reference to the negative findings from the University of Amsterdam (research which is mentioned in the article, as if it is yet to happen) in an attempt to curb this speculation, you hastily revert it as well, bundled in with the other edits? If you don't think the source is high quality enough, advise a better one. Or at least give a good explanation for the revert so I can fix it up. It's absurd to leave a mention of something as if it is yet to happen, when in fact the research took place years ago (yes, I know "yet to occur" things that have already happened lurk all over the Wiki -- and yes, it makes articles look stale and sloppy). As is, it just makes it look like the University of Amsterdam just got a $750,000 windfall and the solution to alcoholism might be right around the corner. It's too optimistic.
Please take a little more care to read the sources provided for edits properly before summarily and hastily reverting edits. You incorrectly reverted my edit twice because you hadn't taken the time to read the source properly. I have reverted both of your 'reverts'. It would help us both not to waste each other's time like this. Thanks Fortnum ( talk) 13:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Those symptoms are the DSM criteria. There are other diagnostic criteria, such as ICD-10
https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/F01-F99/F90-F98/F90-/F90.9 - Chrisvacc ( talk) 19:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Can I ask you to take a look at ticket:2019082810006731
The requester suggested it be deleted although in fairness did suggest another option.
I think they may be right but it is not my area of expertise (coincidentally, I had a visit from a vet today, but the subject was another vet, not the practice per se.)
My concern is that this may not be a simple edit.
My supposition was that this article, created in 2003, was originally titled "veterinarian" and someone moved it to "veterinary physician". However, I looked at the move log, and I see a move from "veterinary physician" to "veterinarian", but no other moves. I must be missing something.
There is also collateral issues as the term is also used in Veterinary medicine in the United States. S Philbrick (Talk)
Doc James, wouldnt it be a good idea to create an infobox [3] specifically for signs/symptoms... example- Category:Symptoms and signs: Nervous system (Id go ahead and do it, I just don't know how to produce the page)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, J - if a police report says a person died from multiple dog bites, that is not actually the ‘’cause’’ of death is it? I would think the person suffered multiple dog bites but the actual cause of death would be something like the carotid artery was severed and victim ‘’bled to death’’, or died of ‘’cardiac arrest’’, or something like that, correct? The bite itself doesn’t kill you, does it? (Forgive my laypersonitis) Atsme Talk 📧 14:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This request is prompted by an OTRS message but frankly you don't even have to read the message. ticket:2019082910008442
I removed a sentence from Esophageal spasm on the basis that it was unsourced. However, I note that the entire treatment section, which includes fairly specific and significant suggestions, is unsourced. I mulled over removing the entire section as unsourced but if it's all good advice, the better option of course is to add appropriate sources.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doc. I'm contacting you about this as I've gathered from previous work done by you at Keratoconus and elsewhere that you're experienced in this area. The edits made by Deeshant_Sharma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Keratoconus and Andrew Lam (ophthalmologist) reek of self-promotion. What do you think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 22:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, my edit to the MDMA page, which you reverted, was made after reading the source material quoted in full. Since it was a meta analysis, I also read all of the source material contributing to that study, which took a few hours, before I made any changes. The edits I made were factually correct, the info I added was not already on the MDMA page, and the point I was making is explained multiple times in the source material. If the source is accurate enough to prove the points being made in the first place, it must follow that it is also sufficient to prove the point I was making. The source material specified made it clear that (specifically) polydrug users and those with pre-existing depressive illness were not screened out of the study, which was partly based on casualty visits made by people self reporting polydrug use. There is not (and there can not be) any conclusive proof that MDMA was solely, or even partially, responsible for causing any ongoing depressive illness, without the prior exclusion of every other potential causative factor in test subjects. As I'm sure you are aware, this is not currently possible, firstly due to the illegality of any such research being undertaken, and subsequently because the only viable test subjects available have, in the majority of cases, used more than one drug before presenting at casualty. Pre-existing depressive illness is also discussed in the source material, which states that the 'chicken and egg' paradox applies in this case: Is it likely that depression may have occurred in the absence of the drug? Are people with depression more likely to attempt to self-medicate by using MDMA in the first place? These are all moot points which are not just 'unknown', but currently 'unknowable'. Measurable chemical changes thought to be produced directly by MDMA are reversible in humans, a process which is completed within a week of commencing abstinence of MDMA, in almost all cases. Baseline levels are ('normally') restored within 24-48 hours. Even the oft cited 'tuesday blues' effect, some days after taking MDMA, has defied all attempts to quantify or measure it. Chemically and functionally, there is no measurable deficit, and no reason to expect any deficit to occur many days after the drug and all active metabolites have been excreted. What would the mechanism of action be to cause such effects long after leaving the system? Why do the symptoms not manifest earlier? Chemical cascades leading to apoptosis would again have been completed days before. The doses used in tests on rats and mice are almost invariably colossal and have been administered for prolonged periods without any period of abstinence, conditions which would be extremely unlikely to occur in even the most determined of humans. Nevertheless, the damage caused to rat and mice brains is often cited without adequate explanation, and used as an analogue for human brain matter, which it is provably not.
The causes of Major depressive illness are still not well understood, but inasmuch as it isattributable, the root causes are multi-factorial and highly complex. Therefore it is impossible (and frankly disingenuous) at this time to make implications that the two things (MDMA and persistent depressive illness) are positively correlated. The exclusion of that critically important - if not fundamental - caveat from any explanation of the sources seems to me to be both morally and factually wrong, and the highly selective nature of what is included, or not, is a perfect case for why such issues should not be decided arbitrarily by any one user (ie yourself). I have not yet restored the page to include my additions, and I won't until you've had adequate time to reply. With all the above in mind, what possible reason did you have for the wholesale removal of my additions to the page? Please be aware that I will not be drawn into any kind of 'flame war' with you. If after reading this and replying, we still disagree about the edits, I suggest we take it to arbitration where independent others can make the final decision. Thanks Codeye ( talk) 22:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Measles&diff=prev&oldid=913321369 again. It's embarrassing. Graham Beards ( talk) 21:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
You were the deleting admin for Thomas Max Wheelwright. I just came across User:Vips.vipulshah/sandbox and Draft:Thomas Max Wheelwright which look suspiciously like material that was previously deleted from Wikipedia because of hardcoded reference indicators like "[19]" which don;t link to actual references. It looks like displayed text that was copied from a deleted article. Is this similar in substance to the deleted article? This looks very much like undisclosed paid editing and possibly sockpuppetry. Thanks. --
Why do you change the allopregnanolone page? Allopregnanolone is not known scientifically as brexanolone...this is a Sage Pharmaceuticals trade name. Let's keep WIKI accurate, not an advertising platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Why do you continually change the allopregnanolone page? Allopregnanolone is not known scientifically as brexanolone...this is a Sage Pharmaceuticals trade name. Let's keep WIKI accurate, not an advertising platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You just can't keep from posting erroneous information! Are you being paid by Sage Pharmaceuticals? Brexanolone is indeed a trade name used by Sage, whereas the marketed form is called Zulresso. Please get your facts straight and stop changing the allo page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI:
Steroid hormone metabolites are barbiturate-like modulators of the GABA receptor. Maria Dorota Majewska, Neil L. Harrison, +2 authors Steven M PaulPublished in Science 1986 DOI:10.1126/science.2422758 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI:
https://www.empr.com/home/news/dea-schedules-postpartum-depression-treatment-zulresso/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Doc James. I’m reaching out on behalf of Neuronetics, a client of mine at Vault Communications. I appreciate your efforts and expertise as both a trusted and respected physician and editor on the page, and wanted to respectfully inquire about the banners that have been added to the top of the Neuronetics article. Might you be willing to connect with me on that within the Talk Page? If you prefer not to, can you kindly let me know and I’ll do my best to collaborate with other editors in the community in hopes of better understanding, and hopefully resolving, the current issues on the article page? I certainly understand how busy you are and know you may be focused elsewhere, but I wanted to reach out to you directly as my first step. Thanks for your time. MD at Vault Communications ( talk) 19:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, i just thought i should notify you of my contribution on Edd Branson article you moved to Draft space. I noticed that the original creater of the article is currently blocked on suspected paid editing, i then looked in the article and removed unsourced claims to clean it up as the tag suggested then moved it back into Article space. I then thought of notifying you as the Admin who is looking into that case. Gukura ( talk) 10:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).