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 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome to Wikipedia, Seppi333! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
Way2veers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Way2 veers 02:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and just find the study and use that as a source. However, it's actually Wikipedia policy that it's better to use a secondary news source reporting on a study than it is to use the study itself. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I remember someone linking it to me after I made the same point you just did on my user page. Also, it's almost always better to try to fix something yourself or to leave the almost-sufficient version in place (after commenting about it in the talk page) than it is to delete it. Thanks. Exercisephys ( talk) 22:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please retract this inappropriate accusation of vandalism. I see you are a new editor, which may well explain your misunderstanding of the meaning of "vanadalism". Please note that accusing a good-faith contributor of vandalism is a personal affront to an editor's integrity. Please read WP:NOT VANDALISM. Thank you. :) 81.157.7.7 ( talk) 10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest in improving the article and that section; however, piecewise deletion of non-supporting material of a specific viewpoint along with re-casting and mis-citing the results of academic research only hurts wikipedia. You did bring to my attention the specific policy on primary sources though, so I've tried to address your issues w.r.t. wp:npov by disassociating it from the context of test-taking. Seppi333 ( talk) 10:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to advise you that this page is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Performance-enhancing use of medically-prescribed Adderall Regards Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd ( talk) 12:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please use recent secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Thanks. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Note to other users reading these old comments: these issues were discussed in a section in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine archive, titled "COPY AND PASTE" as well as in several sections in Jmh649's talkpage archive.
In your edit, you forgot to remove the word "and". -- IO Device ( talk) 06:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It's nice to see someone else with a degree in Psychopharmacodynamics (you said psychopharmacology on your user page, but since you're contributions are mainly about effects that drug have on the body, I'm assuming your degree is in pharm-d rather than pharm-k. Also, I should add that I haven't graduated yet. However, I will complete my 6th year of medical this year!) contributing to Wikipedia! You add great information to the articles and I'm glad someone, who's educated on the subject, contributes so much to the Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, and Methylphenidate articles. Especially since there is so many misconceptions out there about these drugs.
It's very frustrating when people who have no knowledge on a subject edit the articles just because they believe everything the media tells them. Again, I applaud you for, essentially, moderating the articles and keeping the information factual, rather than speculative.
Wikipedia needs more people like you!
SwampFox556 ( talk) 03:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amphetamine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasata -- Sasata ( talk) 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. Just saw your "censored comment" about Sleep aid. And noticed that the three articles wikilinked above redirect to three different articles. Perhaps we should decide which article is the best to redirect to? -- Hordaland ( talk) 11:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, Seppi333. Thanks again for your edits to amphetamine, an important page which is very much in need of development. I'd like to point out that you should always make sure you aren't removing correct and notable information when copy-editing and revising. People devote a lot of time to finding information and accompanying sources that belong in these pages, and it shouldn't be deleted haphazardly. I remember previously mentioning this when you deleted a section involving working memory from the page as well.
Be bold, but delete with care. Thanks.
Exercisephys ( talk) 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) The point I was trying to make is the same one as in
WP:UNDUE - or "balance w.r.t. prominence." In the future, to address your concerns, I'll make a new thread in the talk page, move deleted material there, and notify you with
Exercisephys (
talk ·
contribs) to inform you of material I've cut and that I don't think is worth investing my time finding citations for (as long as I don't doubt it's validity). Is this a satisfactory solution for you?
Just as an aside, one sentence that I've done this for already is in the collapse tab in
Talk:Amphetamine#Article improvement. I have no interest in looking to recite that material even though it's true.
Seppi333 (
talk) 06:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Lugia2453 ( talk) 22:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DPRoberts534 ( talk) 06:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 02:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Seppi!
Is there anything I can do to improve the section I wrote about stimulant drugs in the treatment of ADHD? I'd be happy to add, edit or remove information to better comply with Wikipedia standards. Just let me know, and I'd be happy to put in my extra time to helping out! :)
Regards, SwampFox
SwampFox556 ( talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still working on it
here, and will probably add more before I'm done. I needed to resource some of the statements due to
WP:MEDDATE though.
(Sandbox permalink for my archive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Seppi333/sandbox&oldid=581576965)
Edit: I'm probably not going to be done with this until tomorrow, since I've got a lot of formatting work to do for text flow/readability in order to merge the two parts after I finish adding the remainder. Seppi333 ( talk) 03:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I need a link to the associated policy or style guideline corresponding to content repetition or redundancy with a given article (or equivalently, the guideline corresponding to Template:Repetition, Template:Repetition-inline, Template:Repetition section). I couldn't find one after searching for 20 minutes. Seppi333 ( talk) 01:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Quote from WP:TPG:
Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation. See Talk page layout.
Talkpage behaviour such as the ones you made here are disruptive. Please stop. -- Kim D. Petersen 21:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Amphetamine". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 December 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Amphetamine, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
Sunray (
talk) 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Lesion ( talk) 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Amphetamine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amphetamine for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasata -- Sasata ( talk) 19:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Seppi333. I responded to your comment on my talk page. I appreciate your subtle olive-branch in attempting to gain more understanding of one another's points of view.
I didn't want to fully address this in that response, but there's one other thing that causes me to be sometimes oppositional to you. I feel that you sometimes stymie changes or corrections because the originals' citations are sufficient/MEDRS. Wikipedia isn't about compiling MEDRS sources, it's about compiling accurate, complete information. Sources, even ones meeting MEDRS standards, can be wrong, opinionated, outdated or incomplete. This is especially true when we find a new MEDRS that contradicts an already-cited one. There isn't a grandfather clause for sources or facts.
Editors should work together to try to find facts and truth where they can, not vigorously defend existing passages just because they have sufficient citations.
Remember, your user page has a link to this.
Best, Exercisephys ( talk) 19:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Dexamphetamine is the D-amphetamine of the amphetamine type" Amphet is L and D" althogh Dexamphetamine is only the D-amphetamine" chemically a type") :) Adderal is Amphetamine as it contains 50/50 of D and L. Dexamphetamine contains 100% of pure D therefore speaking chemically being a type of amphetamine" But still amphetamine but only 1 type of the amphetamine" Cheers mate" if you want to chat more email PM me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.55 ( talk) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. No worries. My colleague is pushing for publication soon for some reason. ENT is only working on paper 2 so we no longer wait for that stage. You have already reviewed the "interventions" section and commented. Were you happy with the conclusions I wrote? Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 15:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Best and keep you the good work :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
So technically per WP:LEAD you do not need refs in the lead as long as it is supported by the body of the text. What I do however (as people will tag the article with cs tags if you don't) is add hidden refs like this <!-- Ref here --> Per the references guidelines the refs should be behind the sentence they support not at the end of the paragraph. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Also per image sizes, usually they are left at default or given a fraction of default per [2] This allows registered users to set how large they want to see them rather than forcing a specific size upon people. Some many details... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a very harsh thing to say about a living person. Do you mind me removing it? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of comments at the "Amphetamine" FAC. Would you like me to review the article there? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Axl:Yes, please. The more feedback the better, IMO. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Methamphetamine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DendroNaja -- DendroNaja ( talk) 23:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I cannot resist. I am on your side, but this is too much fun. He is ACTUALLY wrong, not logically wrong, basically because most circumcisions are USA plus Islam, and Islam is not the vast majority of the sum. That aside, I will take his side deductively on two points. First it was MY reference, and pinning it on him when he only used it to refute me is at best a rhetorical point, which seems common on WP. As for the remainder of your point:
He said (most X are Y) is true for the set of all X You said (most X are Y) is not true for all subsets of all X.
He did not make a deductive fallacy. You just wore him down.
...and in all honestly I have to say I jacked it from someone else in turn. The kitten however, remains nonreturnable ;p Lesion ( talk) 09:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, what a lot of comments have been added since I looked last! Please keep up your effort; I'll try to do my bit when I've got some more leisure. Cheers -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Methamphetamine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Methamphetamine for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DendroNaja -- DendroNaja ( talk) 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Why was the page that was previously "Amphetamine mixed salts" changed back to Adderall? We had a long discussion about that had and it changed the other way in the past year. Exercisephys ( talk) 01:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Methamphetamine (estimated annual readership: 2,732,096) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Bobnorwal ( talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
Hey! This is just a little note to say, "Thanks for all your hard work." And while I'm at it, here's another one for your work on the Amphetamine article:
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Amphetamine (estimated annual readership: 1249876) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Bobnorwal ( talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
It's always nice to see Wikipedians improving high-traffic articles that people clearly read and care about. Hopefully, these awards act as small tokens of my and others' appreciation.
And hopefully you haven't already received these awards... :P Bobnorwal ( talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi... I notice that you uploaded the File:Catecholamine and trace amine biosynthesis.png – nice job! I was wondering if you might make a couple of tweaks? The vertical bonds to the carboxylate groups in the structures on the left should point to the C-atom not to the O-atom. Similarly in the structures on the right, the bonds to the NHCH3 should point to the N-atom and not the C-atom. I suspect that both the NHCH3 and CO2H groups are aligned centre when they should be left-aligned. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 05:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. As promised, I have been working to expand the synthesis section of the amphetamine article (see amphetamine sandbox). I know you were planning to redo the graphics but I needed to create new graphics to match the text I was writing. I hope you don't mind. I was also planning to redo the methods 1, 2, and 3 in the "Amphetamine synthesis routes" graphics to match the style of the other graphics in this section. How does it look so far? One worry I have is that the section is becoming too long and some reviewers seem to be allergic to organic chemistry ;-) I was not planning to expand it any further and the present version may need to be trimmed somewhat. Thoughts? Boghog ( talk) 06:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about a supplementary section "harmful/toxic impurities/byproducts of clandestine preparation"? -- Hm20 ( talk) 16:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Watching the discussion on the FP post. Saw this more 3D diagram online. If you have any desire to play some more with the diagram, I've done this diagram with the 3D look and would be happy to help. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Your image on the mechanisms of TA1 activation is superb. Erebusthedark ( talk) 21:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
I gotta confess, I am new to this and don't have time/patience to figure out this cryptic interface to get a message posted.. hope this is okay.
I have issue with first part of the Methamphetamine article. It fails to cite source for the "opposite of amphetamine" statement on neurotoxicity: "Entirely opposite to the long-term use of amphetamine, there is evidence that methamphetamine causes brain damage from long-term use in humans". This statement is without citation and suggests a hint of bias, as it needlessly compares this one drug to another. My personal experience is that both of these drugs are equally dangerous. To say that one is more harmful by a particular measure is fine, but I do not believe that any of these classes of drugs should be presented as being more or less dangerous than the others. If the statement is true, let's cite the source. Otherwise, I submit that it should be deleted.
I am no fan of meth, but I am also very sensitive to seeing misinformation about it. It is very important that information be correct and verifiable, else doubt may be cast on the rest.
I will check back when I have time to see if I am doing this right and to look for reply. Thanks.... Ka7znm ( talk) 15:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with this sentiment. Let me know if anything else looks amiss. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)It is very important that information be correct and verifiable, else doubt may be cast on the rest.
Another time, please don't use a dummy edit to make a comment. Such comments are appropriate for the talk page. Further, it is not unlikely that the editor is not done editing. The part of my edit summary that said "revert and restore valid diffs" implies that I will be making at least one more edit. Your making such a dummy edit forced me to resolve an edit conflict. Even though your edit was just adding a space, it caused additional work on my part for a not very good reason. I would not have had as much of a problem with your doing so, if the only thing that I had reverted was your use of User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. Looking up the article history to determine which date format should be used did not take that long. I had already done so prior to reverting your edit. However, there were changes by Citation bot which I also reverted, and I was attempting to decide the best way to resolve getting the good parts of that edit back in the article without the munged authors which it has been putting in every edit I have seen it do in the past couple of days (only looked at those that hit my watchlist).
I appreciate that you desired to have the dates in Nootropic be consistent. In doing so, it is appropriate to go through the history of the page to determine what format was used first (see WP:DATERET). The history page has a link to show the oldest edits. In most cases is it easy to just pick the first and the last, maybe the middle (or a binary search) on that page of the history. Doing so usually shows enough information to determine which format was used first. In some cases, a more detailed effort is required. — Makyen ( talk) 05:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that you have changed date formats on several articles. In your edit summaries, you claim that your edits are "per WP:MOSNUM". However that guideline does not support your edits. MOS:DATEFORMAT indicates that the style "2001-08-22" is suitable for references.
If you wish to undertake stylistic formatting changes throughout a whole article, you should discuss this on the article's talk page first, especially when the article is a featured one. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Axl: You're right - I owe you an apology for coming off aggressively like that; sorry. I became frustrated from the repeated allusions on WT:MED to the incident where a dispute arose over the specific format used. My concern is/was really only consistency, regardless of format, in our FAs due to the FA criteria regarding consistent ref formatting. My reasoning for doing it was my judgment that it's better to fix the FA criteria errors in our FAs and bypass a consensus than to get tied up in talkpage discussions about who prefers what date format for each article where there was no dominant format.
As for the particular article you mentioned, I'd have converted the dates to the YMD format in that article if the script provided an option for that; unfortunately, it's the only date format that it doesn't include. It would've taken me too much time to manually convert the dates in the 5-10% of articles which had inconsistent citations and YMD as the most prevalent format. I don't plan on changing the dates in other articles in case you're concerned about that. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
To Seppi333, thank you for your collaboration, with the aim of improving Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
{{
subst:WP Physiology–invite}}
~~~~{{
subst:WP Physiology–welcome}}
~~~~Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu Talk 12:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The Cure Award | |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) -- Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
It's my understanding that edit disagreements are best discussed on the talk page of the site where the edits are occurring. Are you OK with that approach? If so I'll leave you a note on the Ghrelin talk page for your response. Thanks.
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 06:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Two questions for my education: 1) do I keep this response at the margin, or indent (::) under your response? 2) have you ever taken part in arbitration re an inability to resolve a difference over an edit? If so, could you give me a word or two about the process?
Thanking you in advance -
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 13:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just found the WP:BRT page which answered all my questions about the process, so I'll retract my question asking you to explain it. Unless you have any useful anecdotes from you personal experience from being involved in it. BRT says I should revert your edit back to mine, then have the discussion on the talk page, but I'm going to leave yours there for now. Plenty of time to talk!
IiKkEe ( talk) 13:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm back to talk more about your recent edits to Ghrelin. I would still prefer to chat with you a bit more here, and if we don't come to an agreement at some point, we can take the discussion to the Ghrelin talk page and get an Administrator involved to choose.
The first issue is to describe Ghrelin as a neuropeptide. My reading tells me that that designation is reserved for peptides made by neurons. Since the ghrelin cell is not a neuron, ghrelin is not a neuropeptide. Ghrelin is certainly a peptide, and the receptor is certainly on a neuron, but that does not make it a neuropeptide. If you think I am wrong, would you provide me a reference addressing this?
The second issue is that ghrelin cells are found in the CNS. Certainly ghrelin receptors are found in the CNS, but I find no references that the cell is the CNS. The citation you linked to this doesn't mention CNS ghrelin cells in the abstract (I don't have access to full text).
So similar request: if you think I am wrong, would you provide me a reference addressing this?
Thanking you in advance -
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 15:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for "retracting" the produced in the CNS part. Before I saw the changes you made, I was coming here to tell you that I think I am wrong and you are right re whether it is a neuropeptide! Purely by accident, I was reading about gastrin: secreted by the gastric G cell, a peptide that has a receptor in the CNS - identical situation to ghrelin, and that author referred to gastrin as a "neuropeptide"! Now I see that of the 3 papers you cited to me, two said it is a neuropeptide, a third said it acts like a neuropeptide. The third one is probably anal like me and is being a literalist. I'm thinking "acts like a neuropeptide" is a great compromise, but I'd like to change the wording a bit and see what you think. If you don't like it, we'll keep talking. IiKkEe ( talk) 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Two more issues. One, are you really OK with my parenthetical description of what is the function of the VTA? I think the chemical addiction part is OK but I really don't know about the sexual desire part. Delete that part, modify it, or leave it as is? I hope you 'll make the last call on that or I'll need to do some reading.
Two, Boghog left a note on the talk page about 2 sentences he wanted in the lead that I had placed in the Structure section which I completely rewrote. I deleted them 2 May, he reverted 2 May 06:36. I deleted, not realizing he put them back. He reverted 4 May 07:25, I deleted 07:29, he reverted 09:58. I was in the middle of a complete rewrite of the lead, and didn't realize he was reverting. I just thought the system was not accepting my deletions. Then I saw the message on the Talk page. I rewrote his first sentence for word economy and clarity, and he didn't revert those changes, so I assume he's OK with it as is. Now that the that I have expanded and rewritten the rest of the lead to the point I think it is "perfect", it's time to discuss these two sentences.
You added a concurrence with his wishes on the talk page at the time. Now that the lead has been updated and expanded and the Structure section has been expanded to include the info in these 2 sentences, do you still think these should be included? I think they are minor facts not of sufficient importance to make the lead - especially the second sentence which is not really about ghrelin, rather the parent molecule. Just interested to know your position before I negotiate with him, so I know if I am discussing this with one or two who see it differently. If he still thinks they belong, we can move on to arbitration by an Administrator. Since its just personal preference, it shouldn't be too painful if I lose!
IiKkEe ( talk) 01:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed on your user page a rating system for such articles. If this is part of your WP interest, would you as time permits read Platelets, Leptin, Ghrelin, and Essential thrombocythaemia and see if their is sufficient improvement with recent edits to warrant a review for potential rating upgrade?
If that's not one of your interests, or you review them and think the current rating is appropriate, please let me know and I'll accept your judgment and move on!
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 23:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi333 - Because of your addition to the Ghrelin lead re its effect on the VTA, I am suspecting that you have some knowledge and interest in the VTA. I am pasting a comment here that I left on the VTA Talk page a few moments age, and would like your response if I guessed right about your involvement with the topic: respond there or on my User talk page if you are so inclined. Am I anywhere close to right?
"As I understand it, the VTA is the brain center that allows human beings to become addicted to all the drugs listed; to food; and to become addicted to sexual intercourse, masturbation, viewing pornography, sexual stalking, sexual possessiveness, sexual rage, sexual violence, rape, and murder.
I understand that the mechanism for this is that with increasing intensity and frequency of sensory input to the VTA from the above stimuli, repetitive dopamine assaults on the dopamine receptors in the VTA cause a compensatory reduction in their number in order to modulate the response; so that the next comparable "dose" of input results in a lesser "reward" ; or restated, a greater input is required to create can comparable intensity of satisfaction. More and more input creates ever lesser gratification, and withdrawal creates intense cravings. If the "inputs" are readily available, the result is addiction.
The evolutionary advantage of the VTA to early humans was that because food and sex were extremely difficult to obtain, there was survival value for a neural mechanism promoting these intense behavior seeking desires. But now that in modern society food, sexual stimuli, and addicting drugs are readily available to us all, the presence of the VTA, which used to promote survival, now creates antisocial and self destructive survival-averse behavior. In other words, it explains most of the woes of the modern world.
I have no references to any of the above at my fingertips. I will leave this here for a few days to see if there are any comments, reactions, or corrections. If not, I will add the above three paragraphs to the lead."
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 00:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I saw the template. Are you still working on the article? A few days ago, at the Romanian Wikipedia, we started our own work on the article. Perhaps we could help each other. Regards, Wintereu ( user talk) 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I notice you re-added the AfD notice to this page; I removed it as it was improperly added without a discussion page and it was unclear whether an AfD or Prod was meant. After I explained this here it was accepted by the editor posting the notice. I don't want to edit war over this so won't revert you but it can't be left in this state.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 16:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sep333, I noticed you made some changes in Statistics recently. I haven't incorporated your changes in my new version, please be aware that this is unintentionally, since I was working from an earlier version of the article. I'll try if I can easily insert your recent changes either today or later this week. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I´ve done it, hope it´s okay now. Probably wise if you double-check yourself. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Seppi333. It looks like you've been edit warring on this article, because you've reverted quite a number of times. This puts you at risk of a WP:3RR violation. As you know a complaint about your edits was filed at WP:ANI#User:Seppi333 and article mathematical statistics (permanent link).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
This looks to be seven six reverts since 24 May. Please agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting the article again. This will help to avoid any admin action. Thank you,
EdJohnston (
talk) 02:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.
The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{ User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Seppi333. I shall have some spare time this week. Is there an article that you would like me to look at? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Howdy, I was wondering if you have ADHD yourself. Although I've had many good experiences on Wikipediocracy, I just had a very tough one when I mentioned ADHD. If you can believe it, everyone was uncomfortable talking about it, accused me of somehow hiding (what, they didn't specify) behind it, or refused to believe there was anything good about it. I've run in to the first two many times, but the third was new to me. In any case, every bad experience is an opportunity to build better ones, so I decided to go on-wiki to meet other ADHDers. I know that WP is a reference work and is not intended to convince anyone of anything or debate conflicting viewpoints, but I figured I'd go through some of the more common disorders and make sure that they contain solidly referenced descriptions of the some of the more prevalent gifts that are highly correlated with many disorders, starting with ADHD. Would love to see you drop by on my talk page, too. I hear some of the most influential Wikipedians hang out there, tho some for all the wrong reasons. I'd like to think that they're increasingly showing up for better ones. Hope to run in to you again soon. ,Wil ( talk) 23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Seppi,
I wanted to be sure you were aware that you have been mentioned in several posts made by the IP-hopping Telus customer from Edmonton, Canada (75.15x.xxx.xxx) who sometimes signs their posts "Bohgosity BumaskiL," and who intentionally uses peculiar spelling ("iz", "haz"). I am sure you know who I am talking about. In particular this editor has mentioned you:
This editor has neglected to provide you the courtesy of a {{ ping}} when making these posts; that is why I am bringing it to your attention here. The editor may have mentioned you to other administrators but used different IP addressed that I haven't tracked down here.
Zad
68
23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed all the references from the lead section of the dextroamphetamine article and I'd like to know why. I understand you pruning the information about side effects as I will grant you it was a bit too long so I understand that sort of pruning, I also understand that I did in fact get the pharmacology wrong as I was misreading the journals and their results, but I do not understand why you cut all the references out that I had placed in the lead, after all they were secondary sources which permitted and even favoured by WP:MEDRS. After all Wikipedia is never going to be respected as a high-quality source on its own, hence the fundamental need for verifiability, hence I think at least some of the major points in the lead, like its use by the military, its medical uses and its pharmacologic action needs referencing. I understand cutting the reference number for each point (like its military use, medical use and pharmacology) down to say one review article, but I do not understand why they should be cut entirely. I read the lead guideline and it didn't make any argument against referencing so long as they do not clutter the lead. I do understand also that you moved those references to the pharmacology section, but I fail to see the harm of citing these references in the lead as well. Brenton ( contribs · email · talk · uploads) 20:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi333, I'm curious about your edit to the Sexual Addiction article. Your comment is that the Neurochemical Theory is outdated and conflicts with subsequent info in the article in level two. First, where is the conflicting info -- I don't understand what you're referring to by level two. Since the section you've edited is a list of prevalent theories, how could there be conflicting info -- is it that this isn't an existing theory? Also how is the neurochemical theory outdated? As I understand it, this is a major prevailing theory for explaining sex addiction. I think probably this information should remain, but I wanted to reach out to you for an explanation of your reasoning first. TBliss ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
References
|
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi: I've left a note for you on the sex addiction talk page, as requested, explaining why I removed that material from the article. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I see you've done something similar in the substance dependence article. While the FOSB stuff looks plausible, I think it's radically oversimplifying things to state that it is the mechanism of addiction, as if the matter was settled beyond doubt, and these massive text dumps go way beyond what's needed.
What would make more sense, and would meet the WP:NPOV requirement, would be a statement on the lines of "Several researches, most notably Dr. X and Professor Y, have put forward the hypothesis that ...", and then point the reader at the FOSB article for more detail. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't put it any more clearly: the reviews you are quoting make clear statements that delta FOSB is implicated in the process of sexual addiction, but other practitioners, equally legitimately, claim that sexual addiction is not actually a real thing. Logically, they can't both be right, and there is thus a legitimate difference of opinion between experts. In this case, WP:NPOV is the only way this can be resolved. -- The Anome ( talk) 21:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
References
The defining feature of addiction is compulsive, out-of-control drug use, despite negative consequences. ...
compulsive eating, shopping, gambling, and sex–so-called "natural addictions"– ... these pleasurable behaviors may excessively activate reward-reinforcement mechanisms in susceptible individuals. ...
{{
cite book}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 120 (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Familiar pharmacologic terms such as tolerance, dependence, and sensitization are useful in describing some of the time-dependent processes that underlie addiction.
Tolerance refers to...
Pharmacokinetic tolerance is caused by..., whereas pharmacodynamic tolerance is a result...
Sensitization, also referred to as reverse tolerance, occur when...
Dependence is defined as an adaptive state that develops in response to repeated drug administration, and is unmasked during withdrawal, which occurs when drug taking stops.
Dependence from long-term drug use may have both a somatic component, manifested by physical symptoms, and an emotional–motivation component, manifested by dysphoria. While physical dependence and withdrawal occur with some drugs of abuse (opiates, ethanol), these phenomena are not useful in the diagnosis of addiction because they do not occur with other drugs of abuse (cocaine, amphetamine) and can occur with many drugs that are not abused (propranolol, clonidine).
The official diagnosis of drug addiction by the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (2000), which makes distinctions between drug use, abuse, and substance dependence, is flawed. First, diagnosis of drug use versus abuse can be arbitrary and reflect cultural norms, not medical phenomena. Second, the term substance dependence implies that dependence is the primary pharmacologic phenomenon underlying addiction, which is likely not true, as tolerance, sensitization, and learning and memory also play central roles. It is ironic and unfortunate that the Manual avoids use of the term addiction, which provides the best description of the clinical syndrome.
{{
cite book}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 171 (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The reinforcing effects of drugs can be demonstrated in animals, where rodents and nonhuman primates readily self-administer certain drugs … The strength with which certain drugs reinforce behavior in animals correlates well with their tendency to reinforce drug-seeking behavior in humans. The neural substrates that underlie the perception of reward and the phenomenon of positive reinforcement are a set of interconnected forebrain structures called brain reward pathways; these include the nucleus accumbens (NAc; the major component of the ventral striatum), the basal forebrain (components of which have been termed the extended amygdala, as discussed later in this chapter), hippocampus, hypothalamus, and frontal regions of the cerebral cortex. Addictive drugs are rewarding and reinforcing because they act in brain reward pathways to enhance dopamine release or the effects of dopamine in the NAc or related structures, or because they produce effects similar to dopamine.
{{
cite book}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 297 (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
List of possible meanings of the term "sexual addiction" in descending order of seriousness
Note that the first two groups both have science on their side, and both have, from their respective terms of reference, clear justification for their beliefs. The neuroscientists have clearly identifiable biochemical pathways, and animal experiments which meet the statistical standards of proper science. The psychiatrists point to the fuzziness of the human conception of "sexual addiction", which is so far undefined as a clinical entity, because of the absence of any serious evidence that such a thing exists in humans in a way that might meet the serious standards of evidence-based medicine.
-- The Anome ( talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That looks good! It should help explain some of the different perspectives on this. I like the last two the most, but they might be hard to cite... Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! My apologies (again...) for not reacting to your ping. I've been more or less off-wiki lately, and I'm of course completely out of sync with your FA review. Anything I can do? Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 08:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you haven't disappeared off the face of the earth. :) Unfortunately, I am really busy with schoolwork at the moment, so I won't be able to take another look at the article or your changes until next Friday, after my second biochemistry test. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
With regards to your good faith edit here [3]. The things that you considered uncontroversial aren't really :) The aerosol vs. vapor discussion can be found here. The "likely small risk" i've changed into something that actually is verifiable from the reference [4] -- Kim D. Petersen 17:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I appreciated your comments regarding the MEDRS issue over at the cannabis or THC page (I forget which one it was) as well, and your work on MDMA. You are clearly a friend of MEDRS, so I'll consider you a friend of mine as well. Keep up the excellent work. Formerly 98 ( talk) 23:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar of good editing | |
Thanks for your work at MDMA. I'm glad that you were willing to undertake the much-needed cleanup work there. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Seppi333!
I see that you've been active in editing the Neurotransmitter page on Wikipedia. I just wanted to give you a heads up that my group and I are currently updating this page as well as part of a PSYCH course assignment. Edits will continue throughout the current academic semester, so don't be surprised if you see tweaks/edits in the content and format of the page. Any recommendations/suggestions/comments are most welcome, as we're all beginner-level editors here aiming to improve the quality of the information on this page. Thanks! -- IDidThisForSchool ( talk) 14:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
A word of admiration and appreciation for your work on MDMA and the various amphetamine articles. Don't let the IPs get you down. Formerly 98 ( talk) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) |
Regarding this edit [5], your comment is WP:OR. The source Durmowicz(2014) which is used as the reference, only uses "dependence", no mention of addiction is mentioned in the source at all. Since "dependence" and "addiction" are different, you cannot override what the medical reference is actually saying. -- Kim D. Petersen 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Seppi333. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi,
I put a proposal for a MEDRS tweak up on the MEDRS talk page and would appreciate your input. Thanks, Formerly 98 ( talk) 01:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adderall you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar ( talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Addiction and dependence glossary [1] [2] [3] | |
---|---|
| |
Am okay to have a glossary in the first section. What do you think about here [6] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears that this template is not just on the 10 articles which has the term within it. I am strongly opposed to adding it to dozens or hundreds of articles. There are many things that some people do not understand and having half the lead of all these articles with these 10 terms is undue weight unless the article is specifically about one of these terms. Yes I realize that we may disagree. Before you add it further please get consensus at WT:MED. If you get consensus there then of course you may add them to the articles within the area you get consensus. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Just add my 2¢ in case it helps. A box like this doesn't belong in articles. For readers if they are unsure of a term they can follow the link, and technical, potentially unclear terms should be linked. Guides to editing of any kind don't belong in article content. It will annoy/distract/confuse more people than it helps, and probably be unnoticed or ignored by many editors who think their own way of using words is correct. Odd mistakes and errors should simply be fixed. If there are serious and persistent errors that keep being made in articles then there are various options.
The latter two are the best general solutions for a single article and a larger group. Each gives something to link to in edit summaries, usable by editors manually and automated processes.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 04:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@
Doc James and
JohnBlackburne: I went and checked the MOS on linking numerous technical terms in a section, necessitating "link chasing" by a reader, since I remember it coming up in an amphetamine FAC (this is why there's a stupid amount of parenthetical explanation in the OD section...). Here's what the MOS says about it:
Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style
There is no restriction for glossary transclusion ( MOS:GLOSSARY), save for number of definitions (≥5, ≤25) and relevance to the article. Any addictive drug or addictive behavior article that I add ΔFosB content in will always require the first 5 definitions in the glossary, and frequently includes the 6th. So in these cases, which is the vast majority of articles, excluding the ones linked in the glossary, it violates MOS:LINK to not define these terms in the prose or a glossary transclusion. I am always preferential to the lazy solution (transclude 1 page >>> write the same crap on many). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Adderall you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Adderall for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar ( talk) 17:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The article Adderall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adderall for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar ( talk) 20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The current definition in the box, with the addition of "or compulsive drug use" does not improve on the opening sentence of the article: "Addiction is a state defined by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences."
And falls short of the dramatic change in a person's priorities (motivations) which are viewed by others as so socially dysfunctional to the person that it is described as a disease - "we know better, this is bad for you".
Not all compulsions are so viewed (eg tapping), and the degrees that these appear as choices to the person vary. I believe that addictive compulsions appear to be choices, albeit acknowledged as problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinGugino ( talk • contribs)
Adderall is already a GA so maybe you change your editing plan for Adderall to FA. Sorry to bother you. Clr324 23:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 ( talk • contribs)
The Original Barnstar | ||
You've put an awful lot of work into that amphetamine article, and it's high time somebody recognized you for it, even if it's not with a FA star. AmericanLemming ( talk) 05:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
I get the impression that you're pretty frustrated with Wikipedia right now, especially the featured article process. I've now supported promotion on the FAC page; you may want to read my 721-word explanation of why. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I've really enjoyed working with you to improve the amphetamine article. If the current FAC doesn't pass (which is unfortunately a somewhat real possibility) and you find the time and desire to improve it further to finally get that FA star, know that I'd be glad to help you with that. Just address the comments I've already made first, please! :)
If you decide that editing Wikipedia is no longer for you, I understand; I've got an article of my own that I've been trying to get to FA status for the past year ( Treblinka extermination camp), and that has been a similarly frustrating experience. If that's the case, I wish you all the best in your future endeavors in real life. AmericanLemming ( talk) 05:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
On 05:47 3 January 2015 you added an Addiction glossary to the Caffeine page, with the justification "add addiction glossary to the relevant section so that I hopefully don't need to clarify this again in the future". I thought this addition was a useful one; however another editor deleted it on 12:29 4 January with the justification "Effects: on subpage".
I would like to see this table restored. Would you explain here what you meant by the above "hopefully..."? Has this issue been contentious either here or elsewhere in the past? If so, with whom? Would you consider restoring it and discussing it with the deleting editor? I hope so! Is there anything I can do to help? Thanks. Regards, IiKkEe ( talk) 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Addiction and dependence glossary [1] [2] [3] | |
---|---|
| |
References
Despite the importance of numerous psychosocial factors, at its core, drug addiction involves a biological process: the ability of repeated exposure to a drug of abuse to induce changes in a vulnerable brain that drive the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs, and loss of control over drug use, that define a state of addiction. ... A large body of literature has demonstrated that such ΔFosB induction in D1-type [nucleus accumbens] neurons increases an animal's sensitivity to drug as well as natural rewards and promotes drug self-administration, presumably through a process of positive reinforcement ... Another ΔFosB target is cFos: as ΔFosB accumulates with repeated drug exposure it represses c-Fos and contributes to the molecular switch whereby ΔFosB is selectively induced in the chronic drug-treated state.41. ... Moreover, there is increasing evidence that, despite a range of genetic risks for addiction across the population, exposure to sufficiently high doses of a drug for long periods of time can transform someone who has relatively lower genetic loading into an addict.
Substance-use disorder: A diagnostic term in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) referring to recurrent use of alcohol or other drugs that causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems, disability, and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, school, or home. Depending on the level of severity, this disorder is classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Addiction: A term used to indicate the most severe, chronic stage of substance-use disorder, in which there is a substantial loss of self-control, as indicated by compulsive drug taking despite the desire to stop taking the drug. In the DSM-5, the term addiction is synonymous with the classification of severe substance-use disorder.
Thank you for your prompt,thorough and thoughtful response. I see the glossary is back on the Caffeine page: thank you for that too. I'm going to trim it a bit and delete the terms which do not apply directly to caffeine. I hope you will take a look at it when I'm done and give me your reaction/suggestions. Regards, IiKkEe ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I already did what I said I was going to do before I saw that there was a message for me from you. See what you think - I deleted the terms I think do not apply to caffeine. IiKkEe ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is the MDD page still showing the Monoamine hypothesis as a primary hypothesis for depression, I know that the page presents other hypotheses for the cause, but currently there is no consensus on a hypothesis for the cause of MDD. The Monoamine hypothesis is just the easiest way to explain it, the most studied hypothesis, but it doesn't explain everything about depression, nor how to treat depression fully.
Doctors tell their patients that it's an 'imbalance' of neurotransmitters, however, there is no true consensus on the actual cause of depression. Docs just say this because it's easier to explain, but it's a lie.
They should tell patients, that they don't know for certain what causes depression, but this drug seems to help, and we're not entirely sure how it actually works, but it helps some people.
thank you for removing my citation needed for monoamine hypothesis comment on the MDD page, and thank you for whomever added the newer information and citations to this section of the MDD page. Franglish9265 ( talk) 19:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franglish9265 ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
They're not mutually exclusive. Cell signalling can interconnect multiple inputs for a disease along a particular neural pathway via more than 1 signaling pathway/cascade which eventually merges (like in psychostimulant addiction, which has 2 - a cAMP and a calcium pathway) and by involving multiple layers of signaling compounds and proteins. These terminate inside the nuclear membrane (following transcription), which is where the magic (genetics) happens.
Funny that you should ask that question on stress/epigenetics though, because I saw this the other day and put it in my sandbox: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446562
It's interesting since that gene transcription factor in the nucleus accumbens governs/modulates virtually every aspect of addiction. Also, I meant pharmacogenomics in terms of the treatment, not the cause. E.g., SSRIs work because of their all-the-way-downstream effects on gene expression through the transcription factors they affect.
In any event, gene transcription factors are the direct regulators of brain plasticity. Intermediate neurotrophic messengers like BDNF signal to these downstream targets, which is what causes the trophic response, not its immediate target ( TrkB activation doesn't suddenly grow your brain, in the event what I meant wasn't obvious). Because depression involves altered neuroplasticity, there is without a doubt a pathological genetic component, or that wouldn't occur. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
wow quite a bit of things to read before I respond. While I agree that there is a genetic component, I think that there also is a much stronger component of depression, that is situational and epigenetic factors that have a stronger influence. Everyone most likely has the ability to become Major Depressive, given the right circumstances. Stress, Negative experiences, life changing events, events beyond our control, etc. Are you familiar with epigenetics? I most likely have some adverse genetic mutations that predispose me to MDD, but unless they get turned on or off in my offspring or me, it's not something I'm going to worry about. I think that the genetic mutations, etc that we inherit are neutral, in effect. They may have negative implications if they get over-expressed, but one could avoid the negative consequences provided a better understanding of how they get turned on or off, or how to function with MDD. They may have positive implications of they are expressed differently, or not at all.
While I haven't been able to discontinue ADs yet, They seem to work even in an active placebo-ish way for me, but I think they work because they do something else than Selective Serotonin Re-uptake inhibition, they give me hope, and active placebo effects which I'll take any day. Franglish9265 ( talk) 16:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Massive reflist
|
---|
References
|
@ Franglish9265: Didn't notice this until now; when I said behavioral epigenetics, I really meant the effects that drugs and behaviors have on gene expression via their influence on transcription factor expression (those are also genes, but they regulate the expression of other genes). Heritable genetics (by that I mean what you get from your parents) very likely play a role in determining innate risk for developing any brain-related disorders, but they don't govern the actual development/induction of addiction or depression. See this FAQ link from a leading research group in both diseases, specifically: "Q 11. What are transcription factors?" and "Q 12. What role do transcription factors play in addiction and depression?" Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on finally getting amphetamine promoted to FA status! It only took you a little over 13 months. :) I'm just as surprised as you are; I thought the FAC coordinators were going to make us go through the entire article word-by-word before they would promote it, which would have taken dozens of hours, another couple of months, and quite likely a sixth FAC. Thankfully, the powers that be have concurred with my argument that the "Pharmacology" and "Physical and chemical properties" sections are so technical that making the prose perfect is unnecessary and (arguably) a waste of time.
However, I probably will proofread and copy-edit the rest of the article (Pharmacology; Physical and chemical properties; and History, society, and culture) on my own at some point in the future. I've made it this far, so I feel like I should finish what I started. Besides, it's like reading a novel; I want to see how it ends. :) Also, when I finally learn about molecular neuropharmacology (probably in med school), I may try to untangle the pharmacodynamics section for the 0.1% of readers who don't know a thing about molecular neuropharmacology but want to read the section anyway.
Anyway, I'm glad I got to help you get the article promoted, and I hope I've restore some of your enthusiasm for Wikipedia after your unpleasant experiences with Shudde, the lack of reviewers at FAC#3, and the long road to FA status (13 months and 5 FACs). Thanks for letting me nitpick the article to death, too. I've enjoyed working with you, and if you ever should feel ready to brave the unfriendly place that is FAC all over again, let me know and I'll try to take a look for you. I'd suggest nominating Adderall next; some two-thirds of the article is transcluded from amphetamine, so it should hopefully have a smoother ride to FA status. AmericanLemming ( talk) 04:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
some time ago I commented on your substance abuse article, I have a GA nomination for Dyslexia I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at it, I of course would be in your debt, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Seppi333 do you want me to find some new citations or should I wait?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
i know how things can be,i will wait till you give the word, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Seppi333]]  in the last week I added a few refs so did User:Moxy, "if" you have time to see if theres something missing id appreciate it because of your prior GA knowledge,thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We all know red velvet is the supreme cupcake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.24.13 ( talk)
I've gone through the title article and made some major revisions which I expect to stimulate some discussion. Given your past interest in articles about psychoactive drugs, thought you might be interested. Thanks. Formerly 98 ( talk) 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
thank you for your knowledge and experience Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
Is there somewhere in the article I can put it that you won't object to? - War wizard90 ( talk) 08:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Any reason why you believe addiction is a more appropriate redirect? Per WP:PRIMARY drug addiction would more likely constitute substance dependence. Someone searching for drug addiction would be looking for substance dependence not addiction in general. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Seppi, I'm leaving a message here to discuss an edit on Tail of the ventral tegmental area. I noticed that you reverted an edit I made which removed extensive quotations to copyrighted articles, which represents a copyright violation (close paraphrasing at best) not different from pasting the text in other sections of an article. I'd really appreciate an explanation for keeping the quotes. All the best. -- Tilifa Ocaufa ( talk) 00:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know - this edit was a request to revert back to an article title which has stood for several years and was moved without and possibly against consensus. I'll ask for a full move request, but the fact I have to do such a thing to revert a contested move back to an established state is a bit much. SFB 20:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi, I'd be happy to do the review, since this is a topic that interests me greatly, and I'm ready to pick it up any time you are ready to have it reviewed. In fact if it makes sense to you I could formally start the review now but wait until you're ready to actually do anything. Let me know what you'd prefer. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Neurobiological effects of physical exercise you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Looie496 -- Looie496 ( talk) 17:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, this is just a quick note to make you aware of the current deletion discussion for the {{ Maintained}} talk page template which you have used on some article's talk pages. Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
[8] Pubmed says it is a review. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. Reiterating what Tilifa Ocaufa wrote above, I have noticed that you are starting to include very long quotations in citations. I have three concerns with this. First, even though the attribution is crystal clear, these long quotations may go beyond fair use and hence represent potential copyright violations. Second, these long quotations may not be necessary and may even obscure the connection between the text and the source used to support that text. Brevity is clarity. Third, the extensive quotations are starting to make the reference section very long so that it starts to overwhelm the rest of the article.
Please note that that not all the material on governmental sites such as PubMed are in the public domain (see NCBI Copyright and Disclaimers, see also Why you can't copy abstracts into Wikipedia). My suggestion is that source quotations should be limited to the absolute minimum required to support the text. Cheers. Boghog ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
How can we rewrite this to include all the PEDs as an "early warning" about known and suspected life-hampering effects? I am watching. I see you. Welcome to the pantopticon. Yyou will not hold it against me, will you! ( talk) 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Amphetamine
Thank you, Seppi, for quality articles on scientific background in
neuropsychopharmacology, such as the rewrite of
Amphetamine and
Euphoria, for redirects, article talk maintenance and
images, for "continuously donate my 2¢ to WT:MED since I'm generous like that", - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You just deleted the paragraph I wrote regarding the sharp increase in prescribing of Dexamphetamine in the Netherlands, saying it should be moved to the "Legal" section. However, I have to disagree that the "Legal" section would be the most appropriate place to put that paragraph. As it currently is, the "Legal" section lists the legality of (d/l-)amphetamine in several countries, but the paragraph I wrote has little to do with the legality of amphetamine, and more with the medical aspect, as I also mentioned several medical indications for which it can be legally prescribed nowadays, and for what it was prescribed in the past (pre 90's). Maybe you have some better suggestions of where to place the paragraph I wrote?
03/04/2015 Psych0-007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psych0-007 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Seppi333,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects
Ryzhou ( talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. Where are we on this, please? Looie496 ( talk) 15:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi333! Re your revert of my edit to Template:Addiction, why was no reason given? As most of the items are " Behavioral addictions". I think Hypermobility (travel) falls in the mid-range of this spectrum of Addiction and easily justifies an entry there. Indeed, in Behavioral addiction, travel is named & linked. What say you? DadaNeem ( talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@ JohnBlackburne:, I've followed through with my statement at the MfD and deleted the subpage. Going forward, I think it would be better if you and I discuss any issues that arise between us and come to a mutually-acceptable solution instead of continue on with our confrontational interactions that began with our dispute at talk:statistics. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Seppi, even if the sources are completely muddleheaded about addictions and compulsions, I still wish you had thought of a gentler way to communicate your disgust. I want you here for the long run (also, how do you feel about human cloning? Having six or seven of you would be handy ;-), and I want other editors to stay on your side. You've got friends and allies here. I want you to keep them. If you're frustrated, then come tell me about it. I can't always solve the problems, but I will listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Seppi333. A few weeks ago, I visited the home page and saw amphetamine as the featured article. I just wanted to say, congrats! A lot of us really appreciate the work you do. It's a huge selfless societal contribution, and you've done a great job.
Best,
-- Exercisephys ( talk) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (comms) @ 17:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of the neurodiversity movement? The movement says mental conditions like autism spectrum, ADHD, et. al. should be accepted and celebrated. The movement opposes the idea of "curing" these conditions but many advocates acknowledge the benefits of psychiatric drugs (which is not the same as a cure!) on some and support the right to choose.
Sorry if this question is bothersome or offensive to you. Clr324 ( say hi) 09:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You just made those changes [9]. I have reverted them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you stop being an asshat and actually read the pages to understand why I made the changes I did? PHARMMOS literally says:
Research
Ongoing investigations into a medication that have not reached clinical usage. Uses that are in clinical trials belong in the Medical uses section.
All I did was add a subsection to medical to make a distinction between approved and non-approved uses. WTF is so controversial about that? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 12:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Neurobiological effects of physical exercise you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Neurobiological effects of physical exercise for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Looie496 -- Looie496 ( talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi, I'm afraid I had to fail the GA nom, simply because it has been sitting at the top of the queue for three months with no real progress. Feel free to renominate it when it is actually ready for review. Best regards, Looie496 ( talk) 16:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
would you concur in adding a mechanism section to this article, with these sources [13] and [14] -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Any reason why?
Special:Diff/670167781. :)
Ladsgroup
overleg 23:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on Talk: Adderall -- Chemical Study Aid. I would also appreciate any feedback on the comments I just added since I seem to have a different opinion than some editors on the way WP should address such topics in medical articles. Medicine is not my professional field. Thanks. 172.88.146.9 ( talk) 12:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Nice find! I can't find any reference of dosage of MDMA suggesting overdose, though. It only says "BBB dysfunction was observed immediately following acute MDMA treatment and up to 10 weeks following an acute injection. Increased BBB permeability after MDMA treatment was associated with increased parenchymal penetration of endogenous albumin (Sharma and Ali, 2008), increased activation of astrocytes, and microglia (Monks et al., 2004), and increased brain water content suggesting edema (Sharma and Ali, 2008)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitarian ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The study with rats used four doses over 8 hours in "trying to approximate a human dosaging pattern". [1] The source you cited [2] found BBB damage at 3-9 mg of methamphetamine intraperitoneally in rats. Converted to oral (x2) human dosage, that's about 70 mg for an average adult. [3] This is well below a typical street dose of 250 mg, and since methamphetamine makes up 80 percent of MDMA by mass (molar weight 190g/mol for methylenedioxy-methamphetamine and 150g/mol for methamphetamine), this is also well below what's in a typical street dose of MDMA. Infinitarian ( talk) 11:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I'm patient. The second source you cited isn't freely accessible, but the first one corroborated what other sources I've found said, that BBB damage is caused by inflammation. It didn't mention the role of TAAR1s. Other sources I've read found that the damage is caused by oxidative stress to the astrocytes, and based on the significant reduction in damage found in coadministration with vitamin C (source: The Agony of Ecstasy, I believe) they assumed this was the primary mechanism. This is what makes me think it's no coincidence that meth and MDMA both cause BBB damage, as they probably metabolize into similar radicals, and the dosage for meth with rats is certainly not one generally considered an overdose. An overdose is defined as a dangerously high dosage, but the damage occurred at dosages simulating human use. We have no way to draw definitive conclusions about dosage from meth studies, but that's all the more reason that we shouldn't specifically label it as overdose, which is to presume we know more than we do. My concern is that a potential MDMA user reading that under the "overdose" section will think he is safe if he takes a normal dosage, whereas the reports I've read from users suggested otherwise. They reported sensations of brain swelling ("brain too big", "brain pushing against skull") months after usage, consistent with findings that MDMA-induced BBB damage increases permeability of the BBB to water and minerals. Of course this isn't my rationale for putting it under long term effects: my rationale is that we don't know if it's caused by an overdose but we do know that it's a long term effect, lasting for at least 10 weeks.
I was unaware of the role of dopamine metabolites in oxidative stress until you pointed it out, but there appear to be several mechanisms, including toxic metabolites of MDMA [4] and inhibition of mitochondria [5]. Cerebral edema isn't defined as life-threatening and can be asymptomatic. For example, most children with diabetic ketoacidosis are thought to have cerebral edema, but only 1% is symptomatic. [6] I agree that cerebral edema should be in the overdose section, as it's usually used in symptomatic cases and it would be misleading to put it under long-term effects, but I mentioned it because the asymptomatic cerebral edema caused by non-dangerous doses of MDMA is consistent with findings of increased water/mineral permeability of the BBB, which can itself have more dangerous effects. It's unknown how long the BBB remains damaged, and if it's permanent, it can increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (which involves amyloids crossing the blood-brain barrier). However, even 10 weeks is a relatively long-term effect, so I think this specifically should be put under long-term side effects. A friend of mine would not have used MDMA if she'd been presented with these findings. 07:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Seppi333, Should it be easier for people to know how to post messages properly on talk pages? I'm having a hard time knowing where you want my comment located or if other people would have a hard time knowing how to post to you for other reasons as well. Is there room for improvement on Wikipedia in that area? My original question is: Why do you have 2 letter Ps in you name instead of just one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikpapag ( talk • contribs)
Hi Seppi, I saw a thread on Reddit about this page and its accuracy, or lack thereof, so I wanted to bring our article to the attention of someone who was familiar with MEDRS and ADHD topics. Do you think you could take a look at it? Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy holidays. | ||
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Seppi, may you have the best holiday Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC) |
hi! I have deep interest in neuropharmacology too,
and I translate related topics to Chinese. Panintelize ( talk) 07:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hello! I noticed that in this revision you changed the medication of choice for treating Giardiasis. The reference listed doesn't support either the old claim nor the new one. It just says that three drugs are used for treatment. I assume you have a good reason for the change you made, so do you know where we might find a reference for the different drug preferences in the U.S. and E.U.? Thanks a bunch! Ajpolino ( talk) 18:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Seppi, I have redrawn your annotated amphetamine pathway as c:File:Amph_pathway.svg. Since there went more work from your side into it than just drawing a structural formula, I wanted to ask if you have any objections, especialy regarding copyrights and/or mentioning of you as the original author. I have linked to your original as derived from. I have not replaced any use of your file, I am just browsing the maintenance categories from time to time and redraw some formulae and reaction schemes. -- Nothingserious ( talk) 10:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, we agree to isolate to postpone the INN issue :-). But what is your opinion on my current proposal? The demos look great: /testcases9, from here! I need judgements. Pls take a look. - DePiep ( talk) 22:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've been looking at this. I think we can solve the heroin INN issue very fast and without interfering with the big Names discussion. (that won't finish soon I guess). To speed the decision I want to pre-discuss it here with you (pre-cook the proposal).
Situation to be solved: the Infobox title is set, but it is not the INN name. Example:
Heroin,
LSD.
Basics: The title is either set by default (PAGENAME), or by |drug_name=
.
WP:PHARMOS states that the title must be the INN name. All fine, for example
Aspirin and
N,N-Dimethyltryptamine. However, with heroin the page title is chosen for different reasons (most common name), and now the INN-name is totally unconnected.
Solution: I have added |INN=
to {{Drugbox}}, only to be used when infobox title and INN differ. It adds a second row to the title: "INN: ...". See
/testcases8#Heroin and
#Lysergide.
Things not solved:
FYI,
Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title lists all articles with |drug_name=
set. They are potential candidates for using |INN=
this way, but it appears most of those 50 pages are adding "(INN)" to the title, which is wrong (because all titles are INN).
Question: Do you like this solution? Shall I propose this & proceed? Should not be too big a problem. - DePiep ( talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The template should have a large, bold title line. ... It should not contain a link.). Adding "INN: none" for drugs w/o an INN seems fine to me as well. There's no need to address INN variants IMO, since most drug articles don't mention them in the text. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The Cure Award | |
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further. |
Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
wow i thought for sure you were going to !vote keep on that. happy surprise. Jytdog ( talk) 01:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The concept of stacking is large and warrants its on section on reddit with thousands of members and trackmystack.com is the largest open stack site online, and the community for nootropics especially is very large thus the link. Please explain why it is not relevant to the nootropics article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.158.49 ( talk) 17:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The Amphetamine article has a section covering overdose, addiction, dependence and withdrawal, and toxicity and psychosis. I checked a couple of other articles like codeine and oxycodone and there doesn't seem to be any consistency across them. So I gave it a title. Overdose is not a title for eg. addiction. The current layout actually makes no logical sense. So I was wondering what title I can give it instead (not Other Risks??). Or is the article just plain locked? Can I ask someone to change it? Thanks. Eloerc ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for copyediting that intro! I was very confused about the L - S and D - R bit. That the Dextroamphetamine is actually the S enantiomer and vice versa! Even though the latin is wrong, the chemistry is right! xD FOr a while there I was certain wiki was wrong. But if WIki is wrong, then Sigma Aldritch and the NIH also would have been wrong! Glad you fixed my mistake before I had to. - Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
amphetamine | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1171 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hei, thank you for editing dopamine page, where you turned the IUPAC name into bold, and you wrote the comment box that underlining of the contracted letters for dopamine may be ok here. It was I who underlined the letters, assuming a non-chemist would just jump over the chemical term
Are there alternative ways to show the letters that the accronym is made up of, especially if the letters are from a long and foreign? From your comment I suspected that you may guide me to a source, or tell me of an alternative way, for how to more correctly indicate the orign of the acronym.
Thank you! KinienaTekie 04:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiniena~enwiki ( talk • contribs)
Kiniena~enwiki has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
KinienaTekie 04:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your editorial work on dopamine. KinienaTekie 02:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, I can send you a pdf of:
to finish your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Need 2 medical reviews. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce ( talk) 04:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
You may remember me from my work on Butyric acid.
This entire article, and all of the articles on the drugs involved, are riddled with significant errors:
/info/en/?search=H1_antagonist
This is incredibly detrimental to human health. I've been making some edits to attempt to reflect the research as of 2016:
/info/en/?search=Diphenhydramine#Mechanism_of_action
Diphenhydramine is an inverse agonist of the histamine H1 receptor.[38]
That was an edit I made, because I am not good at making more sophisticated changes with the tables and so forth. Another person(s) read my edit and changed the article to reflect the current research. It is worth noting that that drug has been used in the United States and abroad for 70 years before I came along and made that edit. This is extremely distressing. This information has been known for over 5 years, as well.
Of course the scientific article I cite must be studied, but there is no paywall and I will provide the text so it can be quickly examined:
Since all H 1-antihistamines examined to date have shown inverse agonists, it is suggested that the term "H 1-receptor antagonists" be replaced by "H 1-antihistamines." [41],[42]
Constitutional activity is also demonstrated at H 2 receptors. Many H 2 receptor antagonists, such as cimetidine, ranitidine, tiotidine, and famotidine, described previously as pure H 2 antagonists, actually behave as inverse agonists and diminish basal cAMP levels. By using transfected Chinese hamster ovarian (CHO) cells expressing different densities of wild-type H 2 receptors or uncoupled H 2 (Leu124Ala) receptors, considerable agonist-independent H 2 receptor activity was found. [43] Ranitidine and cimetidine acted as inverse agonists (both induced H 2 receptor upregulation), whereas burimamide was shown to be a neutral antagonist.
There are more sophisticated things that the experienced editors can do in order to bring awareness to this problem and restructure it on a level that I cannot attempt, given the fact that we are talking about drug articles here.
That was not the only edit I had made that day:
Cumulative anticholinergic use is associated with an increased risk for dementia.[28][29]
This had been removed before, despite the enormous evidence supporting the notion that this medication is not good to use in the elderly, et al. With the recent research and research on the talk page, it seems to be sticking up there now.
I am willing to take the time to carefully edit each article, studying each drug to make sure my accuracy is as good as can be expected. I have not had anything removed yet, in fact when I have made edits it has tended to encourage others to change the article to reflect the knowledge I bring from the modern papers. On that Benadryl article, I replaced a paper that was published in 1994, kind of distressing since the human genome project was completed in 2003.
The problem is that the organizational structure supporting all these drugs is something that I cannot edit. If you can take care of that, either directly or by putting the gears of Wikipedia into action so that people will begin to recognize the extent of this problem, that will greatly assist not me, but millions of people.
This next bit is a little more theoretical compared to the above but stay with me for a moment:
/info/en/?search=Behavioral_epigenetics#Learning_and_memory
Studies in rodents have found that the environment exerts an influence on epigenetic changes related to cognition, in terms of learning and memory;[4] environmental enrichment correlated with increased histone acetylation, and verification by administering histone deacetylase inhibitors induced sprouting of dendrites, an increased number of synapses, and reinstated learning behaviour and access to long-term memories.[1][28] Research has also linked learning and long-term memory formation to reversible epigenetic changes in the hippocampus and cortex in animals with normal-functioning, non-damaged brains.[1][29] In human studies, post-mortem brains from Alzheimer's patients show increased histone de-acetylase levels.[30][31]
Alzheimer's disease accounts for over 60% of dementia.
This suggest the potential for Anticholinergic drugs, all or almost all of the drugs operating on the H1 receptor, and at least some of the second generation drugs operating on the H2 receptor, to potentially not only share a relationship with Alzheimer's disease, but also potentially induce a negative effect on people by shutting down learning behaviors and so forth, perhaps via epigenetic mechanisms or other unknown mechanisms. The incentive is not there to do anything about it, because no one even knows about this.
Of course that is completely hypothetical (the epigenetic bit), but not totally out to lunch. Allergies, air pollution and lung function all share epigenetic influences [1] and after having been in Southeast Asia and China, I know for a fact that many people are developing allergies. They deal with this by taking medications which after often considered archaic by western standards. If these drugs induce negative epigenetic changes, which is not unfeasible due to their inverse agonist actions (very uncommon to occur naturally in the body, see: [2] for examples, I have studied those in depth already), then we could be talking about an epidemic of Alzheimer's disease in the future.
/info/en/?search=Health_information_on_Wikipedia#Other_views
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has said that lack of health information increases preventable deaths in emerging markets and that health information from Wikipedia can improve community health.[29] Wales presented the Wikipedia Zero project as a channel for delivering health information into places where people have difficulty accessing online information.[29]
We can help stop unfathomable amounts of pain (and maybe reinstate learning behaviors? I take Longvida Curcumin, which is one of the most powerful HDAC inhibitors, it truly seems to be very effective, with excellent research demonstrating the preservation of cognitive function) by merely explaining how the drugs actually work. I had gotten started to sit down and edit, but I realized that this problem is bigger than me and I have a duty to try and seek guidance. Regards. Salvia420 ( talk) 05:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I actually have started running for the last 2 weeks now after reading your Wikipedia article and I am constantly telling people about it, such as on my /r/Prebiotics forum on reddit that you already may have heard about, but I have not been able to get your perspective on your actual lifestyle.
Keep in mind it is very hard to do this, it is basically like comparing two libraries to each other, sources for everything are somewhere lurking in Prebiotics.
Essentially I wake up (Talalay pillows, latex and memory foam mattress, I take sleep equipment seriously). Then I take Niacin (to upregulate BDNF and the metabolites stimulate and motivate me), 1200 MG Longvida Curcumin and 400 MG SAM-e. I usually go back to sleep for a bit until the niacin flushing is complete (I always flush with my niacin and I don't think it's effective unless there is a flush).
It takes a while for my brain to turn on and I try very hard to avoid coffee as it is a drug that simulates a 1000 calorie meal and that excessively speeds up metabolism. I have a prebiotic shake with 2 tablespoons of resistant starches and 2 tablespoons of inulin to produce butyric acid. Sometimes I am in ketosis at this point as well, and I think it is ideal to be in that state. I also include creatine and lecithin since much SAM-e is wasted creating these, approximately 70%, and SAM-e makes me incredibly motivated (however that is gene based supplementation).
I then run after I have something to eat (based loosely on nutrigenomics and my genetics testing), I run at least 3 miles and also do some hiking. I focus mainly on my legs.
I also use a standing desk for my computer work to keep my posture straight since a bad posture can lower testoterone and increase cortisol in as little as 2 minutes in humans.(Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are | Amy Cuddy | TED Talks )
I know classical Latin and am studying Hebrew to help increase my executive functions such as inhibitory control. I also am learning python 3 and recently learned how to make a GUI.
There are a lot of other complicated details omitted for brevity but you get the idea.
I have some questions. Is resistance training important? I am aware of skeletal muscles producing large amounts of epigenetic factors. Is this hugely significant?
Are there any resources or sources you can recommend to me that kind of serve as a collection site for people like me that are extremely interested in this stuff? My keyword interests would be "epigenetics, BDNF"
Any other observations, criticisms, etc you could offer me? I think that the sort of stuff you are doing here is absolutely critical to humanities survival. It sounds like a joke but brain health is no joke if we are talking about surviving as a civilization. Regards Salvia420 ( talk) 06:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Peripheral norepinephrine concentration rises as well. As demonstrated after Dextroamphetamine administration, plasma norepinephrine can rise up to 400 pg/mL, a level comparable to that achieved during mild physical activity [10, 11]. Cumulative effect on norepinephrine concentration is likely when amphetamine-type medications are given in the setting of acute illness or combined with activities leading to catecholamine release, such as exercise. ... The primary effect of norepinephrine on ketogenesis is mediated through increased substrate availability. As shown by Krentz et al., at high physiological concentrations, norepinephrine induces accelerated lipolysis and increases NEFA formation significantly [14]. Secondly, norepinephrine stimulates ketogenesis directly at the hepatocyte level. As reported by Keller et al. [15], norepinephrine infusion increased ketone bodies concentration to a greater degree when compared to NEFA concentration (155 ± 30 versus 57 ± 16%), suggesting direct hepatic ketogenic effect.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Elevation of plasma norepinephrine concentrations to stress levels (1,800 pg/ml) resulted in normal subjects in a significant increase in ketone body production by 155% (determined by use of [14C]acetoacetate infusions), in a decrease of the metabolic clearance rate by 38%, hyperketonemia, and in increased plasma free fatty acid (FFA) levels by 57% after 75 min.
Hello! I requested a reassessment of empty nose syndrome after a full rewrite by Jytdog, contributed to by many people in a discussion that has been long and heated, and included new editors, recruited from an ENS forum who were initially very unhappy with the rewrite. I think we've done a good job under difficult conditions and it would be very good for everyone's morale (as well as the correct decision technically!) if the improved quality were acknowledged. Thank you for considering this. Dubbin u | t | c 11:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 22#Suggestion - unify .27glossaries.27 and categories by automatically assembling .27microarticles.27.2C streamline glossary.26list creation.2Fmaintainance might interest you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that I've thanked you before, but here's a cup of tea. You give so much to Wikipedia and its readers, and we really appreciate it. :-) Exercisephys ( talk) 01:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC) |
For some reason I always thought methamphetamine was metabolized into dextroamphetamine only, no levoamphetamine. I think this stemmed from a long-past dig through the research literature to find articles comparing dextroamphetamine with methamphetamine because of some ridiculous claims that methamphetamine's action was derived primarily from the dextroamphetamine metabolite and thus it is essentially the same drug (which I was trying to see if I could refute). I just can't get over how stupid it was to miss that, especially after I had just looked up Desoxyn's actual API to confirm that it was racemic... I could have sworn the metabolic pathway in the methamphetamine article said dextroamphetamine, not amphetamine, but apparently not...
Anyways, thanks for fixing my mistake! Garzfoth ( talk) 17:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I was going to revert your reversion, but if I do so everyones blood pressure gets elevated. So maybe I am missing something, which would not be the first time. Several of these papers look and read like specialized primary references, that is the aspect that concerns me with respect to WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:SECONDARY, not to mention WP:NOTNEWS [1] [2] [3]. [3] [4] [5]
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Text "." ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Thanks for this edit [17]. I missed that it was already there once. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You claim I removed high-quality MEDRS sources from articles. Honestly, I can't think of that happening once, and don't recall any angry debates about such sources.
With regard to #s 8-11 in the draft list, all I can say is that there are articles edited by respected editors where such references have been allowed. Let's be constructive and work on making it a better checklist. Thanks, following your response here. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Seppi333 |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 9, 2016 |
Always friendly and constructively active at and around WT:PHARM and Template talk:Infobox drug. Seppi was patient and persistent and succeeded in gaining the first pharmacology FA star in over three years. |
Recognized for |
Bringing Amphetamine to FA status and Adderall and Methamphetamine to GA status. |
Nomination page |
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for work on pharmacology-related articls. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Anypodetos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Seppi333, why did you remove the content on Pokémon Go surrounding the effects on health? It was properly sourced by references listed on WP:VGRS and it isn't a medical article, so it doesn't entirely need to comply with WP:MEDRS in the same way. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This was your 4th revert in 24 hrs [21].
It is better to wait until fully consensus develops. I accept that as an appropriate compromise. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
All Aug 14 2016
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
empty section}}
template there. The movement of existing content to a new position isn't noted as a revert in
WP:3RR however. If it were, moving 4 different paragraphs around in 4 different edits in an arbitrary article would violate 3RR.I just wanted to clarify something really minor that I had done a bad job articulating in that thread... Even though my library's periodical database does recognize Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry as a peer-reviewed journal, the review you wanted didn't show in my search results until I unchecked the "peer-reviewed only" filter. Sometimes when that has happened before, I've been able to verify my library was right about certain articles not actually being peer-reviewed despite being published in a journal that is generally peer-reviewed (e.g., Once there was a footnote that said something like "Note: This article has been been reviewed.") Other times I couldn't tell if the library was right or not to filter something out (though there hasn't been a time yet where I knew definitively they were wrong). I can't say for sure how reliable that search feature is, so I was just pointing it out in case there were any indicators that might otherwise be easy to overlook if you were assuming everything printed in the journal had been subject to peer review. Anyway, I haven't even seen the source and I trust your judgment if you choose to use it. I just wanted to clarify what I had been trying to say in the other day. :) —PermStrump (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Seppi333 I added an image here to attract more editors [27], I went through the article you may want to add [28](i found just 1 mention of bodybuilding)it might be beneficial to the article...IMO(good luck!)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You've been warned for edit warring at Resveratrol per the closure of a 3RR complaint. You may be blocked if you make any more reverts on this article that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be a response to Seppi333's message left on Zefr's talk page in this diff, and removed in this diff; Zefr appears to prefer a blank talk page per past blankings one can see in the history.... Jytdog ( talk) 00:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
My responses are indented. -- Zefr ( talk) 22:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC) You said: I can't imagine that you aren't aware of the fact that a medical review is not a primary source for information that it cites, so I think it's fairly safe to assume that there's a non-policy related reason that motivates you to remove content that is cited to some of these sources. If you actually talk to me instead of simply revert my edits or remove other content cited to such sources based upon an irrelevant policy justification, I'd probably be willing to seek a middle ground with you and revise what is written in a manner that's acceptable to both of us. However, since I generally have no clue what the real reason is as to why you're removing material in most cases, I don't know how to begin to go about revising article content so that it's mutually acceptable to us.
The only thing of which I'm aware that you don't like is the use of medical reviews that cite in vitro evidence or animal studies and make a claim that applies to humans to support a medical claim in an article about humans in vivo. As a general rule, I agree that this is bad unless it is made very clear in the article text that this claim is based upon an extrapolation which may not necessarily be valid/relevant to living humans. However, in some of our past interactions, you've removed medical claims about humans in vivo which is cited to reviews of multiple clinical trials on humans. In the instances that you did this, it really irritated me because I didn't understand why you did this - you simply used a clearly irrelevant policy justification for removing content (e.g., "it [i.e., the source] is primary"). As an example, I know that you're opposed to the current article text in 3-hydroxyisovaleric acid#Medical, but I don't understand why or know which statements in that section that you take issue with.
If you're willing to talk to me and explain why you feel that the text in that section and the
Niacin#Research section (edit: your most recent revision to that section is fine with me) is problematic, I am willing to revise the content in both of these articles and adjust how I write content in the future in order to reconcile our issues with one another.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 21:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Non-free_content. IMO the large blocks of text you are using in the references are not a sufficient valid rationale. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite apart from the copyright concerns, are these long quotations really even necessary? It would be more useful for the reader if these quotations were condensed as much as possible to include only the key points. It is difficult to determine the appropriateness of the long quotes in beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid since most of the citations are cited several times. But one quotation sticks out. Do we really need to include detailed statistics? In my opinion, the results should be removed so that the focus is on the conclusions. Boghog ( talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia should concisely state facts about a subject. It should not discuss the underlying literature at any length.Also splitting the material between citations and notes makes it more difficult for the reader. Eliminating the results to focus on the conclusions would also reduce the copyright concerns. Boghog ( talk) 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Ozzie10aaaa ( talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Seppi333 Happy Holiday/New Year!-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Seppi333, thanks for the revert in VMAT2 article, I thought I almost do irreversible damage. I can understand that the scientific basis for the God Gene is not well established. However, if you look at the talk page, I think most of the people there agreed that at least some connection should be given between VMAT2 and God gene. God gene article has different sources of citation and most of them come from popular sources. So I think it is not breaking the walled garden clausal. Do you have other opinion about this? Adeuss ( talk) 08:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Great article! I've got another great reference and source whose content I would like to add. After that, please consider nominating this article for "Good" status because it is good. Best Regards,
Hey Seppi, a new FAC has new been opened if you're interested in weighing in with support/opposition/suggestions and your final review of MOS compliance. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Whats the OR on the dopaminergic pathway page? Its all secondary sources from reputable journals talking about generally aceppeted concepts and findings. Petergstrom ( talk) 00:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
andThe mesolimbic pathways, once thought to be the primary controller of pleasure, is now known to have no role in pleasure.
are not factually accurate or directly supported by a reference. Both of these examples (there are a handful of others others) are statements that aren't correct, but could be retained in the article after slight modification and the addition of a supporting citation. This is why I added an OR tag until I have to time to fix this later tonight (or possibly tomorrow) instead of deleted them. The first example isn't accurate because the role of dopamine in pleasure cognition hasn't been fully established yet; mesolimbic dopamine release isn't strongly positively correlated with the subjective perception of pleasure, but that does not mean that it does not modulate the perception of pleasure or affect learning/memory related to pleasure cognition. The second isn't accurate because dopamine isn't an excitatory neurotransmitter; it can modulate excitatory/glutamatergic neurotransmission by signaling to glutamate neurons through D1-type receptors, but it is not itself an excitatory neurotransmitter since its two receptor subclasses have opposing effects on the target neurons of dopamine pathways. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)The mesocortical dopaminergic pathways also increase the excitability of the prefrontal cortex, a region particularly important in executive function and goal directed behavior.
Seppi333, Im curious how does the phosphorylation of DAT explain the "phasic" quick DA release, as an intracellular response would take quite a while wouldn't it? Also, are you positive in increased intracellular Na+ doesn't have any effect on DA release? Petergstrom ( talk) 22:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
interesting to you? was written very badly and i just fixed it to get it on track... Jytdog ( talk) 05:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. As I am somewhat semi-retired from Wikipedia, next time it goes up for a FAC, should you think of me, please email me and I will post a review again. Thank you! (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 13:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
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 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome to Wikipedia, Seppi333! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
Way2veers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Way2 veers 02:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and just find the study and use that as a source. However, it's actually Wikipedia policy that it's better to use a secondary news source reporting on a study than it is to use the study itself. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I remember someone linking it to me after I made the same point you just did on my user page. Also, it's almost always better to try to fix something yourself or to leave the almost-sufficient version in place (after commenting about it in the talk page) than it is to delete it. Thanks. Exercisephys ( talk) 22:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please retract this inappropriate accusation of vandalism. I see you are a new editor, which may well explain your misunderstanding of the meaning of "vanadalism". Please note that accusing a good-faith contributor of vandalism is a personal affront to an editor's integrity. Please read WP:NOT VANDALISM. Thank you. :) 81.157.7.7 ( talk) 10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest in improving the article and that section; however, piecewise deletion of non-supporting material of a specific viewpoint along with re-casting and mis-citing the results of academic research only hurts wikipedia. You did bring to my attention the specific policy on primary sources though, so I've tried to address your issues w.r.t. wp:npov by disassociating it from the context of test-taking. Seppi333 ( talk) 10:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to advise you that this page is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Performance-enhancing use of medically-prescribed Adderall Regards Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd ( talk) 12:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please use recent secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Thanks. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Note to other users reading these old comments: these issues were discussed in a section in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine archive, titled "COPY AND PASTE" as well as in several sections in Jmh649's talkpage archive.
In your edit, you forgot to remove the word "and". -- IO Device ( talk) 06:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It's nice to see someone else with a degree in Psychopharmacodynamics (you said psychopharmacology on your user page, but since you're contributions are mainly about effects that drug have on the body, I'm assuming your degree is in pharm-d rather than pharm-k. Also, I should add that I haven't graduated yet. However, I will complete my 6th year of medical this year!) contributing to Wikipedia! You add great information to the articles and I'm glad someone, who's educated on the subject, contributes so much to the Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, and Methylphenidate articles. Especially since there is so many misconceptions out there about these drugs.
It's very frustrating when people who have no knowledge on a subject edit the articles just because they believe everything the media tells them. Again, I applaud you for, essentially, moderating the articles and keeping the information factual, rather than speculative.
Wikipedia needs more people like you!
SwampFox556 ( talk) 03:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amphetamine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasata -- Sasata ( talk) 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. Just saw your "censored comment" about Sleep aid. And noticed that the three articles wikilinked above redirect to three different articles. Perhaps we should decide which article is the best to redirect to? -- Hordaland ( talk) 11:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, Seppi333. Thanks again for your edits to amphetamine, an important page which is very much in need of development. I'd like to point out that you should always make sure you aren't removing correct and notable information when copy-editing and revising. People devote a lot of time to finding information and accompanying sources that belong in these pages, and it shouldn't be deleted haphazardly. I remember previously mentioning this when you deleted a section involving working memory from the page as well.
Be bold, but delete with care. Thanks.
Exercisephys ( talk) 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) The point I was trying to make is the same one as in
WP:UNDUE - or "balance w.r.t. prominence." In the future, to address your concerns, I'll make a new thread in the talk page, move deleted material there, and notify you with
Exercisephys (
talk ·
contribs) to inform you of material I've cut and that I don't think is worth investing my time finding citations for (as long as I don't doubt it's validity). Is this a satisfactory solution for you?
Just as an aside, one sentence that I've done this for already is in the collapse tab in
Talk:Amphetamine#Article improvement. I have no interest in looking to recite that material even though it's true.
Seppi333 (
talk) 06:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Lugia2453 ( talk) 22:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DPRoberts534 ( talk) 06:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 02:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Seppi!
Is there anything I can do to improve the section I wrote about stimulant drugs in the treatment of ADHD? I'd be happy to add, edit or remove information to better comply with Wikipedia standards. Just let me know, and I'd be happy to put in my extra time to helping out! :)
Regards, SwampFox
SwampFox556 ( talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still working on it
here, and will probably add more before I'm done. I needed to resource some of the statements due to
WP:MEDDATE though.
(Sandbox permalink for my archive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Seppi333/sandbox&oldid=581576965)
Edit: I'm probably not going to be done with this until tomorrow, since I've got a lot of formatting work to do for text flow/readability in order to merge the two parts after I finish adding the remainder. Seppi333 ( talk) 03:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I need a link to the associated policy or style guideline corresponding to content repetition or redundancy with a given article (or equivalently, the guideline corresponding to Template:Repetition, Template:Repetition-inline, Template:Repetition section). I couldn't find one after searching for 20 minutes. Seppi333 ( talk) 01:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Quote from WP:TPG:
Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation. See Talk page layout.
Talkpage behaviour such as the ones you made here are disruptive. Please stop. -- Kim D. Petersen 21:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Amphetamine". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 December 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Amphetamine, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
Sunray (
talk) 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Lesion ( talk) 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Amphetamine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amphetamine for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasata -- Sasata ( talk) 19:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Seppi333. I responded to your comment on my talk page. I appreciate your subtle olive-branch in attempting to gain more understanding of one another's points of view.
I didn't want to fully address this in that response, but there's one other thing that causes me to be sometimes oppositional to you. I feel that you sometimes stymie changes or corrections because the originals' citations are sufficient/MEDRS. Wikipedia isn't about compiling MEDRS sources, it's about compiling accurate, complete information. Sources, even ones meeting MEDRS standards, can be wrong, opinionated, outdated or incomplete. This is especially true when we find a new MEDRS that contradicts an already-cited one. There isn't a grandfather clause for sources or facts.
Editors should work together to try to find facts and truth where they can, not vigorously defend existing passages just because they have sufficient citations.
Remember, your user page has a link to this.
Best, Exercisephys ( talk) 19:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Dexamphetamine is the D-amphetamine of the amphetamine type" Amphet is L and D" althogh Dexamphetamine is only the D-amphetamine" chemically a type") :) Adderal is Amphetamine as it contains 50/50 of D and L. Dexamphetamine contains 100% of pure D therefore speaking chemically being a type of amphetamine" But still amphetamine but only 1 type of the amphetamine" Cheers mate" if you want to chat more email PM me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.55 ( talk) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. No worries. My colleague is pushing for publication soon for some reason. ENT is only working on paper 2 so we no longer wait for that stage. You have already reviewed the "interventions" section and commented. Were you happy with the conclusions I wrote? Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 15:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Best and keep you the good work :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
So technically per WP:LEAD you do not need refs in the lead as long as it is supported by the body of the text. What I do however (as people will tag the article with cs tags if you don't) is add hidden refs like this <!-- Ref here --> Per the references guidelines the refs should be behind the sentence they support not at the end of the paragraph. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Also per image sizes, usually they are left at default or given a fraction of default per [2] This allows registered users to set how large they want to see them rather than forcing a specific size upon people. Some many details... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a very harsh thing to say about a living person. Do you mind me removing it? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of comments at the "Amphetamine" FAC. Would you like me to review the article there? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Axl:Yes, please. The more feedback the better, IMO. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Methamphetamine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DendroNaja -- DendroNaja ( talk) 23:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I cannot resist. I am on your side, but this is too much fun. He is ACTUALLY wrong, not logically wrong, basically because most circumcisions are USA plus Islam, and Islam is not the vast majority of the sum. That aside, I will take his side deductively on two points. First it was MY reference, and pinning it on him when he only used it to refute me is at best a rhetorical point, which seems common on WP. As for the remainder of your point:
He said (most X are Y) is true for the set of all X You said (most X are Y) is not true for all subsets of all X.
He did not make a deductive fallacy. You just wore him down.
...and in all honestly I have to say I jacked it from someone else in turn. The kitten however, remains nonreturnable ;p Lesion ( talk) 09:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, what a lot of comments have been added since I looked last! Please keep up your effort; I'll try to do my bit when I've got some more leisure. Cheers -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Methamphetamine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Methamphetamine for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DendroNaja -- DendroNaja ( talk) 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Why was the page that was previously "Amphetamine mixed salts" changed back to Adderall? We had a long discussion about that had and it changed the other way in the past year. Exercisephys ( talk) 01:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Methamphetamine (estimated annual readership: 2,732,096) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Bobnorwal ( talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
Hey! This is just a little note to say, "Thanks for all your hard work." And while I'm at it, here's another one for your work on the Amphetamine article:
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Amphetamine (estimated annual readership: 1249876) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Bobnorwal ( talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
It's always nice to see Wikipedians improving high-traffic articles that people clearly read and care about. Hopefully, these awards act as small tokens of my and others' appreciation.
And hopefully you haven't already received these awards... :P Bobnorwal ( talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi... I notice that you uploaded the File:Catecholamine and trace amine biosynthesis.png – nice job! I was wondering if you might make a couple of tweaks? The vertical bonds to the carboxylate groups in the structures on the left should point to the C-atom not to the O-atom. Similarly in the structures on the right, the bonds to the NHCH3 should point to the N-atom and not the C-atom. I suspect that both the NHCH3 and CO2H groups are aligned centre when they should be left-aligned. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 05:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. As promised, I have been working to expand the synthesis section of the amphetamine article (see amphetamine sandbox). I know you were planning to redo the graphics but I needed to create new graphics to match the text I was writing. I hope you don't mind. I was also planning to redo the methods 1, 2, and 3 in the "Amphetamine synthesis routes" graphics to match the style of the other graphics in this section. How does it look so far? One worry I have is that the section is becoming too long and some reviewers seem to be allergic to organic chemistry ;-) I was not planning to expand it any further and the present version may need to be trimmed somewhat. Thoughts? Boghog ( talk) 06:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about a supplementary section "harmful/toxic impurities/byproducts of clandestine preparation"? -- Hm20 ( talk) 16:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Watching the discussion on the FP post. Saw this more 3D diagram online. If you have any desire to play some more with the diagram, I've done this diagram with the 3D look and would be happy to help. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Your image on the mechanisms of TA1 activation is superb. Erebusthedark ( talk) 21:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
I gotta confess, I am new to this and don't have time/patience to figure out this cryptic interface to get a message posted.. hope this is okay.
I have issue with first part of the Methamphetamine article. It fails to cite source for the "opposite of amphetamine" statement on neurotoxicity: "Entirely opposite to the long-term use of amphetamine, there is evidence that methamphetamine causes brain damage from long-term use in humans". This statement is without citation and suggests a hint of bias, as it needlessly compares this one drug to another. My personal experience is that both of these drugs are equally dangerous. To say that one is more harmful by a particular measure is fine, but I do not believe that any of these classes of drugs should be presented as being more or less dangerous than the others. If the statement is true, let's cite the source. Otherwise, I submit that it should be deleted.
I am no fan of meth, but I am also very sensitive to seeing misinformation about it. It is very important that information be correct and verifiable, else doubt may be cast on the rest.
I will check back when I have time to see if I am doing this right and to look for reply. Thanks.... Ka7znm ( talk) 15:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with this sentiment. Let me know if anything else looks amiss. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)It is very important that information be correct and verifiable, else doubt may be cast on the rest.
Another time, please don't use a dummy edit to make a comment. Such comments are appropriate for the talk page. Further, it is not unlikely that the editor is not done editing. The part of my edit summary that said "revert and restore valid diffs" implies that I will be making at least one more edit. Your making such a dummy edit forced me to resolve an edit conflict. Even though your edit was just adding a space, it caused additional work on my part for a not very good reason. I would not have had as much of a problem with your doing so, if the only thing that I had reverted was your use of User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. Looking up the article history to determine which date format should be used did not take that long. I had already done so prior to reverting your edit. However, there were changes by Citation bot which I also reverted, and I was attempting to decide the best way to resolve getting the good parts of that edit back in the article without the munged authors which it has been putting in every edit I have seen it do in the past couple of days (only looked at those that hit my watchlist).
I appreciate that you desired to have the dates in Nootropic be consistent. In doing so, it is appropriate to go through the history of the page to determine what format was used first (see WP:DATERET). The history page has a link to show the oldest edits. In most cases is it easy to just pick the first and the last, maybe the middle (or a binary search) on that page of the history. Doing so usually shows enough information to determine which format was used first. In some cases, a more detailed effort is required. — Makyen ( talk) 05:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that you have changed date formats on several articles. In your edit summaries, you claim that your edits are "per WP:MOSNUM". However that guideline does not support your edits. MOS:DATEFORMAT indicates that the style "2001-08-22" is suitable for references.
If you wish to undertake stylistic formatting changes throughout a whole article, you should discuss this on the article's talk page first, especially when the article is a featured one. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Axl: You're right - I owe you an apology for coming off aggressively like that; sorry. I became frustrated from the repeated allusions on WT:MED to the incident where a dispute arose over the specific format used. My concern is/was really only consistency, regardless of format, in our FAs due to the FA criteria regarding consistent ref formatting. My reasoning for doing it was my judgment that it's better to fix the FA criteria errors in our FAs and bypass a consensus than to get tied up in talkpage discussions about who prefers what date format for each article where there was no dominant format.
As for the particular article you mentioned, I'd have converted the dates to the YMD format in that article if the script provided an option for that; unfortunately, it's the only date format that it doesn't include. It would've taken me too much time to manually convert the dates in the 5-10% of articles which had inconsistent citations and YMD as the most prevalent format. I don't plan on changing the dates in other articles in case you're concerned about that. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
To Seppi333, thank you for your collaboration, with the aim of improving Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
{{
subst:WP Physiology–invite}}
~~~~{{
subst:WP Physiology–welcome}}
~~~~Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu Talk 12:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The Cure Award | |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) -- Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
It's my understanding that edit disagreements are best discussed on the talk page of the site where the edits are occurring. Are you OK with that approach? If so I'll leave you a note on the Ghrelin talk page for your response. Thanks.
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 06:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Two questions for my education: 1) do I keep this response at the margin, or indent (::) under your response? 2) have you ever taken part in arbitration re an inability to resolve a difference over an edit? If so, could you give me a word or two about the process?
Thanking you in advance -
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 13:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just found the WP:BRT page which answered all my questions about the process, so I'll retract my question asking you to explain it. Unless you have any useful anecdotes from you personal experience from being involved in it. BRT says I should revert your edit back to mine, then have the discussion on the talk page, but I'm going to leave yours there for now. Plenty of time to talk!
IiKkEe ( talk) 13:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm back to talk more about your recent edits to Ghrelin. I would still prefer to chat with you a bit more here, and if we don't come to an agreement at some point, we can take the discussion to the Ghrelin talk page and get an Administrator involved to choose.
The first issue is to describe Ghrelin as a neuropeptide. My reading tells me that that designation is reserved for peptides made by neurons. Since the ghrelin cell is not a neuron, ghrelin is not a neuropeptide. Ghrelin is certainly a peptide, and the receptor is certainly on a neuron, but that does not make it a neuropeptide. If you think I am wrong, would you provide me a reference addressing this?
The second issue is that ghrelin cells are found in the CNS. Certainly ghrelin receptors are found in the CNS, but I find no references that the cell is the CNS. The citation you linked to this doesn't mention CNS ghrelin cells in the abstract (I don't have access to full text).
So similar request: if you think I am wrong, would you provide me a reference addressing this?
Thanking you in advance -
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 15:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for "retracting" the produced in the CNS part. Before I saw the changes you made, I was coming here to tell you that I think I am wrong and you are right re whether it is a neuropeptide! Purely by accident, I was reading about gastrin: secreted by the gastric G cell, a peptide that has a receptor in the CNS - identical situation to ghrelin, and that author referred to gastrin as a "neuropeptide"! Now I see that of the 3 papers you cited to me, two said it is a neuropeptide, a third said it acts like a neuropeptide. The third one is probably anal like me and is being a literalist. I'm thinking "acts like a neuropeptide" is a great compromise, but I'd like to change the wording a bit and see what you think. If you don't like it, we'll keep talking. IiKkEe ( talk) 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Two more issues. One, are you really OK with my parenthetical description of what is the function of the VTA? I think the chemical addiction part is OK but I really don't know about the sexual desire part. Delete that part, modify it, or leave it as is? I hope you 'll make the last call on that or I'll need to do some reading.
Two, Boghog left a note on the talk page about 2 sentences he wanted in the lead that I had placed in the Structure section which I completely rewrote. I deleted them 2 May, he reverted 2 May 06:36. I deleted, not realizing he put them back. He reverted 4 May 07:25, I deleted 07:29, he reverted 09:58. I was in the middle of a complete rewrite of the lead, and didn't realize he was reverting. I just thought the system was not accepting my deletions. Then I saw the message on the Talk page. I rewrote his first sentence for word economy and clarity, and he didn't revert those changes, so I assume he's OK with it as is. Now that the that I have expanded and rewritten the rest of the lead to the point I think it is "perfect", it's time to discuss these two sentences.
You added a concurrence with his wishes on the talk page at the time. Now that the lead has been updated and expanded and the Structure section has been expanded to include the info in these 2 sentences, do you still think these should be included? I think they are minor facts not of sufficient importance to make the lead - especially the second sentence which is not really about ghrelin, rather the parent molecule. Just interested to know your position before I negotiate with him, so I know if I am discussing this with one or two who see it differently. If he still thinks they belong, we can move on to arbitration by an Administrator. Since its just personal preference, it shouldn't be too painful if I lose!
IiKkEe ( talk) 01:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed on your user page a rating system for such articles. If this is part of your WP interest, would you as time permits read Platelets, Leptin, Ghrelin, and Essential thrombocythaemia and see if their is sufficient improvement with recent edits to warrant a review for potential rating upgrade?
If that's not one of your interests, or you review them and think the current rating is appropriate, please let me know and I'll accept your judgment and move on!
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 23:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi333 - Because of your addition to the Ghrelin lead re its effect on the VTA, I am suspecting that you have some knowledge and interest in the VTA. I am pasting a comment here that I left on the VTA Talk page a few moments age, and would like your response if I guessed right about your involvement with the topic: respond there or on my User talk page if you are so inclined. Am I anywhere close to right?
"As I understand it, the VTA is the brain center that allows human beings to become addicted to all the drugs listed; to food; and to become addicted to sexual intercourse, masturbation, viewing pornography, sexual stalking, sexual possessiveness, sexual rage, sexual violence, rape, and murder.
I understand that the mechanism for this is that with increasing intensity and frequency of sensory input to the VTA from the above stimuli, repetitive dopamine assaults on the dopamine receptors in the VTA cause a compensatory reduction in their number in order to modulate the response; so that the next comparable "dose" of input results in a lesser "reward" ; or restated, a greater input is required to create can comparable intensity of satisfaction. More and more input creates ever lesser gratification, and withdrawal creates intense cravings. If the "inputs" are readily available, the result is addiction.
The evolutionary advantage of the VTA to early humans was that because food and sex were extremely difficult to obtain, there was survival value for a neural mechanism promoting these intense behavior seeking desires. But now that in modern society food, sexual stimuli, and addicting drugs are readily available to us all, the presence of the VTA, which used to promote survival, now creates antisocial and self destructive survival-averse behavior. In other words, it explains most of the woes of the modern world.
I have no references to any of the above at my fingertips. I will leave this here for a few days to see if there are any comments, reactions, or corrections. If not, I will add the above three paragraphs to the lead."
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 00:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I saw the template. Are you still working on the article? A few days ago, at the Romanian Wikipedia, we started our own work on the article. Perhaps we could help each other. Regards, Wintereu ( user talk) 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I notice you re-added the AfD notice to this page; I removed it as it was improperly added without a discussion page and it was unclear whether an AfD or Prod was meant. After I explained this here it was accepted by the editor posting the notice. I don't want to edit war over this so won't revert you but it can't be left in this state.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 16:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sep333, I noticed you made some changes in Statistics recently. I haven't incorporated your changes in my new version, please be aware that this is unintentionally, since I was working from an earlier version of the article. I'll try if I can easily insert your recent changes either today or later this week. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I´ve done it, hope it´s okay now. Probably wise if you double-check yourself. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Seppi333. It looks like you've been edit warring on this article, because you've reverted quite a number of times. This puts you at risk of a WP:3RR violation. As you know a complaint about your edits was filed at WP:ANI#User:Seppi333 and article mathematical statistics (permanent link).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
This looks to be seven six reverts since 24 May. Please agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting the article again. This will help to avoid any admin action. Thank you,
EdJohnston (
talk) 02:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.
The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{ User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Seppi333. I shall have some spare time this week. Is there an article that you would like me to look at? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Howdy, I was wondering if you have ADHD yourself. Although I've had many good experiences on Wikipediocracy, I just had a very tough one when I mentioned ADHD. If you can believe it, everyone was uncomfortable talking about it, accused me of somehow hiding (what, they didn't specify) behind it, or refused to believe there was anything good about it. I've run in to the first two many times, but the third was new to me. In any case, every bad experience is an opportunity to build better ones, so I decided to go on-wiki to meet other ADHDers. I know that WP is a reference work and is not intended to convince anyone of anything or debate conflicting viewpoints, but I figured I'd go through some of the more common disorders and make sure that they contain solidly referenced descriptions of the some of the more prevalent gifts that are highly correlated with many disorders, starting with ADHD. Would love to see you drop by on my talk page, too. I hear some of the most influential Wikipedians hang out there, tho some for all the wrong reasons. I'd like to think that they're increasingly showing up for better ones. Hope to run in to you again soon. ,Wil ( talk) 23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Seppi,
I wanted to be sure you were aware that you have been mentioned in several posts made by the IP-hopping Telus customer from Edmonton, Canada (75.15x.xxx.xxx) who sometimes signs their posts "Bohgosity BumaskiL," and who intentionally uses peculiar spelling ("iz", "haz"). I am sure you know who I am talking about. In particular this editor has mentioned you:
This editor has neglected to provide you the courtesy of a {{ ping}} when making these posts; that is why I am bringing it to your attention here. The editor may have mentioned you to other administrators but used different IP addressed that I haven't tracked down here.
Zad
68
23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed all the references from the lead section of the dextroamphetamine article and I'd like to know why. I understand you pruning the information about side effects as I will grant you it was a bit too long so I understand that sort of pruning, I also understand that I did in fact get the pharmacology wrong as I was misreading the journals and their results, but I do not understand why you cut all the references out that I had placed in the lead, after all they were secondary sources which permitted and even favoured by WP:MEDRS. After all Wikipedia is never going to be respected as a high-quality source on its own, hence the fundamental need for verifiability, hence I think at least some of the major points in the lead, like its use by the military, its medical uses and its pharmacologic action needs referencing. I understand cutting the reference number for each point (like its military use, medical use and pharmacology) down to say one review article, but I do not understand why they should be cut entirely. I read the lead guideline and it didn't make any argument against referencing so long as they do not clutter the lead. I do understand also that you moved those references to the pharmacology section, but I fail to see the harm of citing these references in the lead as well. Brenton ( contribs · email · talk · uploads) 20:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi333, I'm curious about your edit to the Sexual Addiction article. Your comment is that the Neurochemical Theory is outdated and conflicts with subsequent info in the article in level two. First, where is the conflicting info -- I don't understand what you're referring to by level two. Since the section you've edited is a list of prevalent theories, how could there be conflicting info -- is it that this isn't an existing theory? Also how is the neurochemical theory outdated? As I understand it, this is a major prevailing theory for explaining sex addiction. I think probably this information should remain, but I wanted to reach out to you for an explanation of your reasoning first. TBliss ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
References
|
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi: I've left a note for you on the sex addiction talk page, as requested, explaining why I removed that material from the article. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I see you've done something similar in the substance dependence article. While the FOSB stuff looks plausible, I think it's radically oversimplifying things to state that it is the mechanism of addiction, as if the matter was settled beyond doubt, and these massive text dumps go way beyond what's needed.
What would make more sense, and would meet the WP:NPOV requirement, would be a statement on the lines of "Several researches, most notably Dr. X and Professor Y, have put forward the hypothesis that ...", and then point the reader at the FOSB article for more detail. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't put it any more clearly: the reviews you are quoting make clear statements that delta FOSB is implicated in the process of sexual addiction, but other practitioners, equally legitimately, claim that sexual addiction is not actually a real thing. Logically, they can't both be right, and there is thus a legitimate difference of opinion between experts. In this case, WP:NPOV is the only way this can be resolved. -- The Anome ( talk) 21:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
References
The defining feature of addiction is compulsive, out-of-control drug use, despite negative consequences. ...
compulsive eating, shopping, gambling, and sex–so-called "natural addictions"– ... these pleasurable behaviors may excessively activate reward-reinforcement mechanisms in susceptible individuals. ...
{{
cite book}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 120 (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Familiar pharmacologic terms such as tolerance, dependence, and sensitization are useful in describing some of the time-dependent processes that underlie addiction.
Tolerance refers to...
Pharmacokinetic tolerance is caused by..., whereas pharmacodynamic tolerance is a result...
Sensitization, also referred to as reverse tolerance, occur when...
Dependence is defined as an adaptive state that develops in response to repeated drug administration, and is unmasked during withdrawal, which occurs when drug taking stops.
Dependence from long-term drug use may have both a somatic component, manifested by physical symptoms, and an emotional–motivation component, manifested by dysphoria. While physical dependence and withdrawal occur with some drugs of abuse (opiates, ethanol), these phenomena are not useful in the diagnosis of addiction because they do not occur with other drugs of abuse (cocaine, amphetamine) and can occur with many drugs that are not abused (propranolol, clonidine).
The official diagnosis of drug addiction by the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (2000), which makes distinctions between drug use, abuse, and substance dependence, is flawed. First, diagnosis of drug use versus abuse can be arbitrary and reflect cultural norms, not medical phenomena. Second, the term substance dependence implies that dependence is the primary pharmacologic phenomenon underlying addiction, which is likely not true, as tolerance, sensitization, and learning and memory also play central roles. It is ironic and unfortunate that the Manual avoids use of the term addiction, which provides the best description of the clinical syndrome.
{{
cite book}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 171 (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The reinforcing effects of drugs can be demonstrated in animals, where rodents and nonhuman primates readily self-administer certain drugs … The strength with which certain drugs reinforce behavior in animals correlates well with their tendency to reinforce drug-seeking behavior in humans. The neural substrates that underlie the perception of reward and the phenomenon of positive reinforcement are a set of interconnected forebrain structures called brain reward pathways; these include the nucleus accumbens (NAc; the major component of the ventral striatum), the basal forebrain (components of which have been termed the extended amygdala, as discussed later in this chapter), hippocampus, hypothalamus, and frontal regions of the cerebral cortex. Addictive drugs are rewarding and reinforcing because they act in brain reward pathways to enhance dopamine release or the effects of dopamine in the NAc or related structures, or because they produce effects similar to dopamine.
{{
cite book}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 297 (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
List of possible meanings of the term "sexual addiction" in descending order of seriousness
Note that the first two groups both have science on their side, and both have, from their respective terms of reference, clear justification for their beliefs. The neuroscientists have clearly identifiable biochemical pathways, and animal experiments which meet the statistical standards of proper science. The psychiatrists point to the fuzziness of the human conception of "sexual addiction", which is so far undefined as a clinical entity, because of the absence of any serious evidence that such a thing exists in humans in a way that might meet the serious standards of evidence-based medicine.
-- The Anome ( talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That looks good! It should help explain some of the different perspectives on this. I like the last two the most, but they might be hard to cite... Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! My apologies (again...) for not reacting to your ping. I've been more or less off-wiki lately, and I'm of course completely out of sync with your FA review. Anything I can do? Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 08:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you haven't disappeared off the face of the earth. :) Unfortunately, I am really busy with schoolwork at the moment, so I won't be able to take another look at the article or your changes until next Friday, after my second biochemistry test. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
With regards to your good faith edit here [3]. The things that you considered uncontroversial aren't really :) The aerosol vs. vapor discussion can be found here. The "likely small risk" i've changed into something that actually is verifiable from the reference [4] -- Kim D. Petersen 17:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I appreciated your comments regarding the MEDRS issue over at the cannabis or THC page (I forget which one it was) as well, and your work on MDMA. You are clearly a friend of MEDRS, so I'll consider you a friend of mine as well. Keep up the excellent work. Formerly 98 ( talk) 23:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar of good editing | |
Thanks for your work at MDMA. I'm glad that you were willing to undertake the much-needed cleanup work there. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Seppi333!
I see that you've been active in editing the Neurotransmitter page on Wikipedia. I just wanted to give you a heads up that my group and I are currently updating this page as well as part of a PSYCH course assignment. Edits will continue throughout the current academic semester, so don't be surprised if you see tweaks/edits in the content and format of the page. Any recommendations/suggestions/comments are most welcome, as we're all beginner-level editors here aiming to improve the quality of the information on this page. Thanks! -- IDidThisForSchool ( talk) 14:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
A word of admiration and appreciation for your work on MDMA and the various amphetamine articles. Don't let the IPs get you down. Formerly 98 ( talk) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) |
Regarding this edit [5], your comment is WP:OR. The source Durmowicz(2014) which is used as the reference, only uses "dependence", no mention of addiction is mentioned in the source at all. Since "dependence" and "addiction" are different, you cannot override what the medical reference is actually saying. -- Kim D. Petersen 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Seppi333. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi,
I put a proposal for a MEDRS tweak up on the MEDRS talk page and would appreciate your input. Thanks, Formerly 98 ( talk) 01:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adderall you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar ( talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Addiction and dependence glossary [1] [2] [3] | |
---|---|
| |
Am okay to have a glossary in the first section. What do you think about here [6] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears that this template is not just on the 10 articles which has the term within it. I am strongly opposed to adding it to dozens or hundreds of articles. There are many things that some people do not understand and having half the lead of all these articles with these 10 terms is undue weight unless the article is specifically about one of these terms. Yes I realize that we may disagree. Before you add it further please get consensus at WT:MED. If you get consensus there then of course you may add them to the articles within the area you get consensus. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Just add my 2¢ in case it helps. A box like this doesn't belong in articles. For readers if they are unsure of a term they can follow the link, and technical, potentially unclear terms should be linked. Guides to editing of any kind don't belong in article content. It will annoy/distract/confuse more people than it helps, and probably be unnoticed or ignored by many editors who think their own way of using words is correct. Odd mistakes and errors should simply be fixed. If there are serious and persistent errors that keep being made in articles then there are various options.
The latter two are the best general solutions for a single article and a larger group. Each gives something to link to in edit summaries, usable by editors manually and automated processes.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 04:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@
Doc James and
JohnBlackburne: I went and checked the MOS on linking numerous technical terms in a section, necessitating "link chasing" by a reader, since I remember it coming up in an amphetamine FAC (this is why there's a stupid amount of parenthetical explanation in the OD section...). Here's what the MOS says about it:
Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style
There is no restriction for glossary transclusion ( MOS:GLOSSARY), save for number of definitions (≥5, ≤25) and relevance to the article. Any addictive drug or addictive behavior article that I add ΔFosB content in will always require the first 5 definitions in the glossary, and frequently includes the 6th. So in these cases, which is the vast majority of articles, excluding the ones linked in the glossary, it violates MOS:LINK to not define these terms in the prose or a glossary transclusion. I am always preferential to the lazy solution (transclude 1 page >>> write the same crap on many). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Adderall you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Adderall for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar ( talk) 17:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The article Adderall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adderall for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar ( talk) 20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The current definition in the box, with the addition of "or compulsive drug use" does not improve on the opening sentence of the article: "Addiction is a state defined by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences."
And falls short of the dramatic change in a person's priorities (motivations) which are viewed by others as so socially dysfunctional to the person that it is described as a disease - "we know better, this is bad for you".
Not all compulsions are so viewed (eg tapping), and the degrees that these appear as choices to the person vary. I believe that addictive compulsions appear to be choices, albeit acknowledged as problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinGugino ( talk • contribs)
Adderall is already a GA so maybe you change your editing plan for Adderall to FA. Sorry to bother you. Clr324 23:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 ( talk • contribs)
The Original Barnstar | ||
You've put an awful lot of work into that amphetamine article, and it's high time somebody recognized you for it, even if it's not with a FA star. AmericanLemming ( talk) 05:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
I get the impression that you're pretty frustrated with Wikipedia right now, especially the featured article process. I've now supported promotion on the FAC page; you may want to read my 721-word explanation of why. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I've really enjoyed working with you to improve the amphetamine article. If the current FAC doesn't pass (which is unfortunately a somewhat real possibility) and you find the time and desire to improve it further to finally get that FA star, know that I'd be glad to help you with that. Just address the comments I've already made first, please! :)
If you decide that editing Wikipedia is no longer for you, I understand; I've got an article of my own that I've been trying to get to FA status for the past year ( Treblinka extermination camp), and that has been a similarly frustrating experience. If that's the case, I wish you all the best in your future endeavors in real life. AmericanLemming ( talk) 05:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
On 05:47 3 January 2015 you added an Addiction glossary to the Caffeine page, with the justification "add addiction glossary to the relevant section so that I hopefully don't need to clarify this again in the future". I thought this addition was a useful one; however another editor deleted it on 12:29 4 January with the justification "Effects: on subpage".
I would like to see this table restored. Would you explain here what you meant by the above "hopefully..."? Has this issue been contentious either here or elsewhere in the past? If so, with whom? Would you consider restoring it and discussing it with the deleting editor? I hope so! Is there anything I can do to help? Thanks. Regards, IiKkEe ( talk) 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Addiction and dependence glossary [1] [2] [3] | |
---|---|
| |
References
Despite the importance of numerous psychosocial factors, at its core, drug addiction involves a biological process: the ability of repeated exposure to a drug of abuse to induce changes in a vulnerable brain that drive the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs, and loss of control over drug use, that define a state of addiction. ... A large body of literature has demonstrated that such ΔFosB induction in D1-type [nucleus accumbens] neurons increases an animal's sensitivity to drug as well as natural rewards and promotes drug self-administration, presumably through a process of positive reinforcement ... Another ΔFosB target is cFos: as ΔFosB accumulates with repeated drug exposure it represses c-Fos and contributes to the molecular switch whereby ΔFosB is selectively induced in the chronic drug-treated state.41. ... Moreover, there is increasing evidence that, despite a range of genetic risks for addiction across the population, exposure to sufficiently high doses of a drug for long periods of time can transform someone who has relatively lower genetic loading into an addict.
Substance-use disorder: A diagnostic term in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) referring to recurrent use of alcohol or other drugs that causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems, disability, and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, school, or home. Depending on the level of severity, this disorder is classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Addiction: A term used to indicate the most severe, chronic stage of substance-use disorder, in which there is a substantial loss of self-control, as indicated by compulsive drug taking despite the desire to stop taking the drug. In the DSM-5, the term addiction is synonymous with the classification of severe substance-use disorder.
Thank you for your prompt,thorough and thoughtful response. I see the glossary is back on the Caffeine page: thank you for that too. I'm going to trim it a bit and delete the terms which do not apply directly to caffeine. I hope you will take a look at it when I'm done and give me your reaction/suggestions. Regards, IiKkEe ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I already did what I said I was going to do before I saw that there was a message for me from you. See what you think - I deleted the terms I think do not apply to caffeine. IiKkEe ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is the MDD page still showing the Monoamine hypothesis as a primary hypothesis for depression, I know that the page presents other hypotheses for the cause, but currently there is no consensus on a hypothesis for the cause of MDD. The Monoamine hypothesis is just the easiest way to explain it, the most studied hypothesis, but it doesn't explain everything about depression, nor how to treat depression fully.
Doctors tell their patients that it's an 'imbalance' of neurotransmitters, however, there is no true consensus on the actual cause of depression. Docs just say this because it's easier to explain, but it's a lie.
They should tell patients, that they don't know for certain what causes depression, but this drug seems to help, and we're not entirely sure how it actually works, but it helps some people.
thank you for removing my citation needed for monoamine hypothesis comment on the MDD page, and thank you for whomever added the newer information and citations to this section of the MDD page. Franglish9265 ( talk) 19:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franglish9265 ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
They're not mutually exclusive. Cell signalling can interconnect multiple inputs for a disease along a particular neural pathway via more than 1 signaling pathway/cascade which eventually merges (like in psychostimulant addiction, which has 2 - a cAMP and a calcium pathway) and by involving multiple layers of signaling compounds and proteins. These terminate inside the nuclear membrane (following transcription), which is where the magic (genetics) happens.
Funny that you should ask that question on stress/epigenetics though, because I saw this the other day and put it in my sandbox: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446562
It's interesting since that gene transcription factor in the nucleus accumbens governs/modulates virtually every aspect of addiction. Also, I meant pharmacogenomics in terms of the treatment, not the cause. E.g., SSRIs work because of their all-the-way-downstream effects on gene expression through the transcription factors they affect.
In any event, gene transcription factors are the direct regulators of brain plasticity. Intermediate neurotrophic messengers like BDNF signal to these downstream targets, which is what causes the trophic response, not its immediate target ( TrkB activation doesn't suddenly grow your brain, in the event what I meant wasn't obvious). Because depression involves altered neuroplasticity, there is without a doubt a pathological genetic component, or that wouldn't occur. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
wow quite a bit of things to read before I respond. While I agree that there is a genetic component, I think that there also is a much stronger component of depression, that is situational and epigenetic factors that have a stronger influence. Everyone most likely has the ability to become Major Depressive, given the right circumstances. Stress, Negative experiences, life changing events, events beyond our control, etc. Are you familiar with epigenetics? I most likely have some adverse genetic mutations that predispose me to MDD, but unless they get turned on or off in my offspring or me, it's not something I'm going to worry about. I think that the genetic mutations, etc that we inherit are neutral, in effect. They may have negative implications if they get over-expressed, but one could avoid the negative consequences provided a better understanding of how they get turned on or off, or how to function with MDD. They may have positive implications of they are expressed differently, or not at all.
While I haven't been able to discontinue ADs yet, They seem to work even in an active placebo-ish way for me, but I think they work because they do something else than Selective Serotonin Re-uptake inhibition, they give me hope, and active placebo effects which I'll take any day. Franglish9265 ( talk) 16:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Massive reflist
|
---|
References
|
@ Franglish9265: Didn't notice this until now; when I said behavioral epigenetics, I really meant the effects that drugs and behaviors have on gene expression via their influence on transcription factor expression (those are also genes, but they regulate the expression of other genes). Heritable genetics (by that I mean what you get from your parents) very likely play a role in determining innate risk for developing any brain-related disorders, but they don't govern the actual development/induction of addiction or depression. See this FAQ link from a leading research group in both diseases, specifically: "Q 11. What are transcription factors?" and "Q 12. What role do transcription factors play in addiction and depression?" Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on finally getting amphetamine promoted to FA status! It only took you a little over 13 months. :) I'm just as surprised as you are; I thought the FAC coordinators were going to make us go through the entire article word-by-word before they would promote it, which would have taken dozens of hours, another couple of months, and quite likely a sixth FAC. Thankfully, the powers that be have concurred with my argument that the "Pharmacology" and "Physical and chemical properties" sections are so technical that making the prose perfect is unnecessary and (arguably) a waste of time.
However, I probably will proofread and copy-edit the rest of the article (Pharmacology; Physical and chemical properties; and History, society, and culture) on my own at some point in the future. I've made it this far, so I feel like I should finish what I started. Besides, it's like reading a novel; I want to see how it ends. :) Also, when I finally learn about molecular neuropharmacology (probably in med school), I may try to untangle the pharmacodynamics section for the 0.1% of readers who don't know a thing about molecular neuropharmacology but want to read the section anyway.
Anyway, I'm glad I got to help you get the article promoted, and I hope I've restore some of your enthusiasm for Wikipedia after your unpleasant experiences with Shudde, the lack of reviewers at FAC#3, and the long road to FA status (13 months and 5 FACs). Thanks for letting me nitpick the article to death, too. I've enjoyed working with you, and if you ever should feel ready to brave the unfriendly place that is FAC all over again, let me know and I'll try to take a look for you. I'd suggest nominating Adderall next; some two-thirds of the article is transcluded from amphetamine, so it should hopefully have a smoother ride to FA status. AmericanLemming ( talk) 04:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
some time ago I commented on your substance abuse article, I have a GA nomination for Dyslexia I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at it, I of course would be in your debt, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Seppi333 do you want me to find some new citations or should I wait?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
i know how things can be,i will wait till you give the word, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Seppi333]]  in the last week I added a few refs so did User:Moxy, "if" you have time to see if theres something missing id appreciate it because of your prior GA knowledge,thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We all know red velvet is the supreme cupcake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.24.13 ( talk)
I've gone through the title article and made some major revisions which I expect to stimulate some discussion. Given your past interest in articles about psychoactive drugs, thought you might be interested. Thanks. Formerly 98 ( talk) 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
thank you for your knowledge and experience Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
Is there somewhere in the article I can put it that you won't object to? - War wizard90 ( talk) 08:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Any reason why you believe addiction is a more appropriate redirect? Per WP:PRIMARY drug addiction would more likely constitute substance dependence. Someone searching for drug addiction would be looking for substance dependence not addiction in general. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Seppi, I'm leaving a message here to discuss an edit on Tail of the ventral tegmental area. I noticed that you reverted an edit I made which removed extensive quotations to copyrighted articles, which represents a copyright violation (close paraphrasing at best) not different from pasting the text in other sections of an article. I'd really appreciate an explanation for keeping the quotes. All the best. -- Tilifa Ocaufa ( talk) 00:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know - this edit was a request to revert back to an article title which has stood for several years and was moved without and possibly against consensus. I'll ask for a full move request, but the fact I have to do such a thing to revert a contested move back to an established state is a bit much. SFB 20:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi, I'd be happy to do the review, since this is a topic that interests me greatly, and I'm ready to pick it up any time you are ready to have it reviewed. In fact if it makes sense to you I could formally start the review now but wait until you're ready to actually do anything. Let me know what you'd prefer. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Neurobiological effects of physical exercise you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Looie496 -- Looie496 ( talk) 17:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, this is just a quick note to make you aware of the current deletion discussion for the {{ Maintained}} talk page template which you have used on some article's talk pages. Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
[8] Pubmed says it is a review. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. Reiterating what Tilifa Ocaufa wrote above, I have noticed that you are starting to include very long quotations in citations. I have three concerns with this. First, even though the attribution is crystal clear, these long quotations may go beyond fair use and hence represent potential copyright violations. Second, these long quotations may not be necessary and may even obscure the connection between the text and the source used to support that text. Brevity is clarity. Third, the extensive quotations are starting to make the reference section very long so that it starts to overwhelm the rest of the article.
Please note that that not all the material on governmental sites such as PubMed are in the public domain (see NCBI Copyright and Disclaimers, see also Why you can't copy abstracts into Wikipedia). My suggestion is that source quotations should be limited to the absolute minimum required to support the text. Cheers. Boghog ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
How can we rewrite this to include all the PEDs as an "early warning" about known and suspected life-hampering effects? I am watching. I see you. Welcome to the pantopticon. Yyou will not hold it against me, will you! ( talk) 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Amphetamine
Thank you, Seppi, for quality articles on scientific background in
neuropsychopharmacology, such as the rewrite of
Amphetamine and
Euphoria, for redirects, article talk maintenance and
images, for "continuously donate my 2¢ to WT:MED since I'm generous like that", - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You just deleted the paragraph I wrote regarding the sharp increase in prescribing of Dexamphetamine in the Netherlands, saying it should be moved to the "Legal" section. However, I have to disagree that the "Legal" section would be the most appropriate place to put that paragraph. As it currently is, the "Legal" section lists the legality of (d/l-)amphetamine in several countries, but the paragraph I wrote has little to do with the legality of amphetamine, and more with the medical aspect, as I also mentioned several medical indications for which it can be legally prescribed nowadays, and for what it was prescribed in the past (pre 90's). Maybe you have some better suggestions of where to place the paragraph I wrote?
03/04/2015 Psych0-007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psych0-007 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Seppi333,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects
Ryzhou ( talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. Where are we on this, please? Looie496 ( talk) 15:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi333! Re your revert of my edit to Template:Addiction, why was no reason given? As most of the items are " Behavioral addictions". I think Hypermobility (travel) falls in the mid-range of this spectrum of Addiction and easily justifies an entry there. Indeed, in Behavioral addiction, travel is named & linked. What say you? DadaNeem ( talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@ JohnBlackburne:, I've followed through with my statement at the MfD and deleted the subpage. Going forward, I think it would be better if you and I discuss any issues that arise between us and come to a mutually-acceptable solution instead of continue on with our confrontational interactions that began with our dispute at talk:statistics. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Seppi, even if the sources are completely muddleheaded about addictions and compulsions, I still wish you had thought of a gentler way to communicate your disgust. I want you here for the long run (also, how do you feel about human cloning? Having six or seven of you would be handy ;-), and I want other editors to stay on your side. You've got friends and allies here. I want you to keep them. If you're frustrated, then come tell me about it. I can't always solve the problems, but I will listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Seppi333. A few weeks ago, I visited the home page and saw amphetamine as the featured article. I just wanted to say, congrats! A lot of us really appreciate the work you do. It's a huge selfless societal contribution, and you've done a great job.
Best,
-- Exercisephys ( talk) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (comms) @ 17:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of the neurodiversity movement? The movement says mental conditions like autism spectrum, ADHD, et. al. should be accepted and celebrated. The movement opposes the idea of "curing" these conditions but many advocates acknowledge the benefits of psychiatric drugs (which is not the same as a cure!) on some and support the right to choose.
Sorry if this question is bothersome or offensive to you. Clr324 ( say hi) 09:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You just made those changes [9]. I have reverted them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you stop being an asshat and actually read the pages to understand why I made the changes I did? PHARMMOS literally says:
Research
Ongoing investigations into a medication that have not reached clinical usage. Uses that are in clinical trials belong in the Medical uses section.
All I did was add a subsection to medical to make a distinction between approved and non-approved uses. WTF is so controversial about that? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 12:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Neurobiological effects of physical exercise you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Neurobiological effects of physical exercise for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Looie496 -- Looie496 ( talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Seppi, I'm afraid I had to fail the GA nom, simply because it has been sitting at the top of the queue for three months with no real progress. Feel free to renominate it when it is actually ready for review. Best regards, Looie496 ( talk) 16:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
would you concur in adding a mechanism section to this article, with these sources [13] and [14] -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Any reason why?
Special:Diff/670167781. :)
Ladsgroup
overleg 23:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on Talk: Adderall -- Chemical Study Aid. I would also appreciate any feedback on the comments I just added since I seem to have a different opinion than some editors on the way WP should address such topics in medical articles. Medicine is not my professional field. Thanks. 172.88.146.9 ( talk) 12:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Nice find! I can't find any reference of dosage of MDMA suggesting overdose, though. It only says "BBB dysfunction was observed immediately following acute MDMA treatment and up to 10 weeks following an acute injection. Increased BBB permeability after MDMA treatment was associated with increased parenchymal penetration of endogenous albumin (Sharma and Ali, 2008), increased activation of astrocytes, and microglia (Monks et al., 2004), and increased brain water content suggesting edema (Sharma and Ali, 2008)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitarian ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The study with rats used four doses over 8 hours in "trying to approximate a human dosaging pattern". [1] The source you cited [2] found BBB damage at 3-9 mg of methamphetamine intraperitoneally in rats. Converted to oral (x2) human dosage, that's about 70 mg for an average adult. [3] This is well below a typical street dose of 250 mg, and since methamphetamine makes up 80 percent of MDMA by mass (molar weight 190g/mol for methylenedioxy-methamphetamine and 150g/mol for methamphetamine), this is also well below what's in a typical street dose of MDMA. Infinitarian ( talk) 11:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I'm patient. The second source you cited isn't freely accessible, but the first one corroborated what other sources I've found said, that BBB damage is caused by inflammation. It didn't mention the role of TAAR1s. Other sources I've read found that the damage is caused by oxidative stress to the astrocytes, and based on the significant reduction in damage found in coadministration with vitamin C (source: The Agony of Ecstasy, I believe) they assumed this was the primary mechanism. This is what makes me think it's no coincidence that meth and MDMA both cause BBB damage, as they probably metabolize into similar radicals, and the dosage for meth with rats is certainly not one generally considered an overdose. An overdose is defined as a dangerously high dosage, but the damage occurred at dosages simulating human use. We have no way to draw definitive conclusions about dosage from meth studies, but that's all the more reason that we shouldn't specifically label it as overdose, which is to presume we know more than we do. My concern is that a potential MDMA user reading that under the "overdose" section will think he is safe if he takes a normal dosage, whereas the reports I've read from users suggested otherwise. They reported sensations of brain swelling ("brain too big", "brain pushing against skull") months after usage, consistent with findings that MDMA-induced BBB damage increases permeability of the BBB to water and minerals. Of course this isn't my rationale for putting it under long term effects: my rationale is that we don't know if it's caused by an overdose but we do know that it's a long term effect, lasting for at least 10 weeks.
I was unaware of the role of dopamine metabolites in oxidative stress until you pointed it out, but there appear to be several mechanisms, including toxic metabolites of MDMA [4] and inhibition of mitochondria [5]. Cerebral edema isn't defined as life-threatening and can be asymptomatic. For example, most children with diabetic ketoacidosis are thought to have cerebral edema, but only 1% is symptomatic. [6] I agree that cerebral edema should be in the overdose section, as it's usually used in symptomatic cases and it would be misleading to put it under long-term effects, but I mentioned it because the asymptomatic cerebral edema caused by non-dangerous doses of MDMA is consistent with findings of increased water/mineral permeability of the BBB, which can itself have more dangerous effects. It's unknown how long the BBB remains damaged, and if it's permanent, it can increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (which involves amyloids crossing the blood-brain barrier). However, even 10 weeks is a relatively long-term effect, so I think this specifically should be put under long-term side effects. A friend of mine would not have used MDMA if she'd been presented with these findings. 07:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Seppi333, Should it be easier for people to know how to post messages properly on talk pages? I'm having a hard time knowing where you want my comment located or if other people would have a hard time knowing how to post to you for other reasons as well. Is there room for improvement on Wikipedia in that area? My original question is: Why do you have 2 letter Ps in you name instead of just one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikpapag ( talk • contribs)
Hi Seppi, I saw a thread on Reddit about this page and its accuracy, or lack thereof, so I wanted to bring our article to the attention of someone who was familiar with MEDRS and ADHD topics. Do you think you could take a look at it? Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy holidays. | ||
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Seppi, may you have the best holiday Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC) |
hi! I have deep interest in neuropharmacology too,
and I translate related topics to Chinese. Panintelize ( talk) 07:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hello! I noticed that in this revision you changed the medication of choice for treating Giardiasis. The reference listed doesn't support either the old claim nor the new one. It just says that three drugs are used for treatment. I assume you have a good reason for the change you made, so do you know where we might find a reference for the different drug preferences in the U.S. and E.U.? Thanks a bunch! Ajpolino ( talk) 18:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Seppi, I have redrawn your annotated amphetamine pathway as c:File:Amph_pathway.svg. Since there went more work from your side into it than just drawing a structural formula, I wanted to ask if you have any objections, especialy regarding copyrights and/or mentioning of you as the original author. I have linked to your original as derived from. I have not replaced any use of your file, I am just browsing the maintenance categories from time to time and redraw some formulae and reaction schemes. -- Nothingserious ( talk) 10:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, we agree to isolate to postpone the INN issue :-). But what is your opinion on my current proposal? The demos look great: /testcases9, from here! I need judgements. Pls take a look. - DePiep ( talk) 22:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've been looking at this. I think we can solve the heroin INN issue very fast and without interfering with the big Names discussion. (that won't finish soon I guess). To speed the decision I want to pre-discuss it here with you (pre-cook the proposal).
Situation to be solved: the Infobox title is set, but it is not the INN name. Example:
Heroin,
LSD.
Basics: The title is either set by default (PAGENAME), or by |drug_name=
.
WP:PHARMOS states that the title must be the INN name. All fine, for example
Aspirin and
N,N-Dimethyltryptamine. However, with heroin the page title is chosen for different reasons (most common name), and now the INN-name is totally unconnected.
Solution: I have added |INN=
to {{Drugbox}}, only to be used when infobox title and INN differ. It adds a second row to the title: "INN: ...". See
/testcases8#Heroin and
#Lysergide.
Things not solved:
FYI,
Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title lists all articles with |drug_name=
set. They are potential candidates for using |INN=
this way, but it appears most of those 50 pages are adding "(INN)" to the title, which is wrong (because all titles are INN).
Question: Do you like this solution? Shall I propose this & proceed? Should not be too big a problem. - DePiep ( talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The template should have a large, bold title line. ... It should not contain a link.). Adding "INN: none" for drugs w/o an INN seems fine to me as well. There's no need to address INN variants IMO, since most drug articles don't mention them in the text. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The Cure Award | |
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further. |
Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
wow i thought for sure you were going to !vote keep on that. happy surprise. Jytdog ( talk) 01:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The concept of stacking is large and warrants its on section on reddit with thousands of members and trackmystack.com is the largest open stack site online, and the community for nootropics especially is very large thus the link. Please explain why it is not relevant to the nootropics article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.158.49 ( talk) 17:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The Amphetamine article has a section covering overdose, addiction, dependence and withdrawal, and toxicity and psychosis. I checked a couple of other articles like codeine and oxycodone and there doesn't seem to be any consistency across them. So I gave it a title. Overdose is not a title for eg. addiction. The current layout actually makes no logical sense. So I was wondering what title I can give it instead (not Other Risks??). Or is the article just plain locked? Can I ask someone to change it? Thanks. Eloerc ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for copyediting that intro! I was very confused about the L - S and D - R bit. That the Dextroamphetamine is actually the S enantiomer and vice versa! Even though the latin is wrong, the chemistry is right! xD FOr a while there I was certain wiki was wrong. But if WIki is wrong, then Sigma Aldritch and the NIH also would have been wrong! Glad you fixed my mistake before I had to. - Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
amphetamine | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1171 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hei, thank you for editing dopamine page, where you turned the IUPAC name into bold, and you wrote the comment box that underlining of the contracted letters for dopamine may be ok here. It was I who underlined the letters, assuming a non-chemist would just jump over the chemical term
Are there alternative ways to show the letters that the accronym is made up of, especially if the letters are from a long and foreign? From your comment I suspected that you may guide me to a source, or tell me of an alternative way, for how to more correctly indicate the orign of the acronym.
Thank you! KinienaTekie 04:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiniena~enwiki ( talk • contribs)
Kiniena~enwiki has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
KinienaTekie 04:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your editorial work on dopamine. KinienaTekie 02:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, I can send you a pdf of:
to finish your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Need 2 medical reviews. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce ( talk) 04:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
You may remember me from my work on Butyric acid.
This entire article, and all of the articles on the drugs involved, are riddled with significant errors:
/info/en/?search=H1_antagonist
This is incredibly detrimental to human health. I've been making some edits to attempt to reflect the research as of 2016:
/info/en/?search=Diphenhydramine#Mechanism_of_action
Diphenhydramine is an inverse agonist of the histamine H1 receptor.[38]
That was an edit I made, because I am not good at making more sophisticated changes with the tables and so forth. Another person(s) read my edit and changed the article to reflect the current research. It is worth noting that that drug has been used in the United States and abroad for 70 years before I came along and made that edit. This is extremely distressing. This information has been known for over 5 years, as well.
Of course the scientific article I cite must be studied, but there is no paywall and I will provide the text so it can be quickly examined:
Since all H 1-antihistamines examined to date have shown inverse agonists, it is suggested that the term "H 1-receptor antagonists" be replaced by "H 1-antihistamines." [41],[42]
Constitutional activity is also demonstrated at H 2 receptors. Many H 2 receptor antagonists, such as cimetidine, ranitidine, tiotidine, and famotidine, described previously as pure H 2 antagonists, actually behave as inverse agonists and diminish basal cAMP levels. By using transfected Chinese hamster ovarian (CHO) cells expressing different densities of wild-type H 2 receptors or uncoupled H 2 (Leu124Ala) receptors, considerable agonist-independent H 2 receptor activity was found. [43] Ranitidine and cimetidine acted as inverse agonists (both induced H 2 receptor upregulation), whereas burimamide was shown to be a neutral antagonist.
There are more sophisticated things that the experienced editors can do in order to bring awareness to this problem and restructure it on a level that I cannot attempt, given the fact that we are talking about drug articles here.
That was not the only edit I had made that day:
Cumulative anticholinergic use is associated with an increased risk for dementia.[28][29]
This had been removed before, despite the enormous evidence supporting the notion that this medication is not good to use in the elderly, et al. With the recent research and research on the talk page, it seems to be sticking up there now.
I am willing to take the time to carefully edit each article, studying each drug to make sure my accuracy is as good as can be expected. I have not had anything removed yet, in fact when I have made edits it has tended to encourage others to change the article to reflect the knowledge I bring from the modern papers. On that Benadryl article, I replaced a paper that was published in 1994, kind of distressing since the human genome project was completed in 2003.
The problem is that the organizational structure supporting all these drugs is something that I cannot edit. If you can take care of that, either directly or by putting the gears of Wikipedia into action so that people will begin to recognize the extent of this problem, that will greatly assist not me, but millions of people.
This next bit is a little more theoretical compared to the above but stay with me for a moment:
/info/en/?search=Behavioral_epigenetics#Learning_and_memory
Studies in rodents have found that the environment exerts an influence on epigenetic changes related to cognition, in terms of learning and memory;[4] environmental enrichment correlated with increased histone acetylation, and verification by administering histone deacetylase inhibitors induced sprouting of dendrites, an increased number of synapses, and reinstated learning behaviour and access to long-term memories.[1][28] Research has also linked learning and long-term memory formation to reversible epigenetic changes in the hippocampus and cortex in animals with normal-functioning, non-damaged brains.[1][29] In human studies, post-mortem brains from Alzheimer's patients show increased histone de-acetylase levels.[30][31]
Alzheimer's disease accounts for over 60% of dementia.
This suggest the potential for Anticholinergic drugs, all or almost all of the drugs operating on the H1 receptor, and at least some of the second generation drugs operating on the H2 receptor, to potentially not only share a relationship with Alzheimer's disease, but also potentially induce a negative effect on people by shutting down learning behaviors and so forth, perhaps via epigenetic mechanisms or other unknown mechanisms. The incentive is not there to do anything about it, because no one even knows about this.
Of course that is completely hypothetical (the epigenetic bit), but not totally out to lunch. Allergies, air pollution and lung function all share epigenetic influences [1] and after having been in Southeast Asia and China, I know for a fact that many people are developing allergies. They deal with this by taking medications which after often considered archaic by western standards. If these drugs induce negative epigenetic changes, which is not unfeasible due to their inverse agonist actions (very uncommon to occur naturally in the body, see: [2] for examples, I have studied those in depth already), then we could be talking about an epidemic of Alzheimer's disease in the future.
/info/en/?search=Health_information_on_Wikipedia#Other_views
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has said that lack of health information increases preventable deaths in emerging markets and that health information from Wikipedia can improve community health.[29] Wales presented the Wikipedia Zero project as a channel for delivering health information into places where people have difficulty accessing online information.[29]
We can help stop unfathomable amounts of pain (and maybe reinstate learning behaviors? I take Longvida Curcumin, which is one of the most powerful HDAC inhibitors, it truly seems to be very effective, with excellent research demonstrating the preservation of cognitive function) by merely explaining how the drugs actually work. I had gotten started to sit down and edit, but I realized that this problem is bigger than me and I have a duty to try and seek guidance. Regards. Salvia420 ( talk) 05:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I actually have started running for the last 2 weeks now after reading your Wikipedia article and I am constantly telling people about it, such as on my /r/Prebiotics forum on reddit that you already may have heard about, but I have not been able to get your perspective on your actual lifestyle.
Keep in mind it is very hard to do this, it is basically like comparing two libraries to each other, sources for everything are somewhere lurking in Prebiotics.
Essentially I wake up (Talalay pillows, latex and memory foam mattress, I take sleep equipment seriously). Then I take Niacin (to upregulate BDNF and the metabolites stimulate and motivate me), 1200 MG Longvida Curcumin and 400 MG SAM-e. I usually go back to sleep for a bit until the niacin flushing is complete (I always flush with my niacin and I don't think it's effective unless there is a flush).
It takes a while for my brain to turn on and I try very hard to avoid coffee as it is a drug that simulates a 1000 calorie meal and that excessively speeds up metabolism. I have a prebiotic shake with 2 tablespoons of resistant starches and 2 tablespoons of inulin to produce butyric acid. Sometimes I am in ketosis at this point as well, and I think it is ideal to be in that state. I also include creatine and lecithin since much SAM-e is wasted creating these, approximately 70%, and SAM-e makes me incredibly motivated (however that is gene based supplementation).
I then run after I have something to eat (based loosely on nutrigenomics and my genetics testing), I run at least 3 miles and also do some hiking. I focus mainly on my legs.
I also use a standing desk for my computer work to keep my posture straight since a bad posture can lower testoterone and increase cortisol in as little as 2 minutes in humans.(Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are | Amy Cuddy | TED Talks )
I know classical Latin and am studying Hebrew to help increase my executive functions such as inhibitory control. I also am learning python 3 and recently learned how to make a GUI.
There are a lot of other complicated details omitted for brevity but you get the idea.
I have some questions. Is resistance training important? I am aware of skeletal muscles producing large amounts of epigenetic factors. Is this hugely significant?
Are there any resources or sources you can recommend to me that kind of serve as a collection site for people like me that are extremely interested in this stuff? My keyword interests would be "epigenetics, BDNF"
Any other observations, criticisms, etc you could offer me? I think that the sort of stuff you are doing here is absolutely critical to humanities survival. It sounds like a joke but brain health is no joke if we are talking about surviving as a civilization. Regards Salvia420 ( talk) 06:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Peripheral norepinephrine concentration rises as well. As demonstrated after Dextroamphetamine administration, plasma norepinephrine can rise up to 400 pg/mL, a level comparable to that achieved during mild physical activity [10, 11]. Cumulative effect on norepinephrine concentration is likely when amphetamine-type medications are given in the setting of acute illness or combined with activities leading to catecholamine release, such as exercise. ... The primary effect of norepinephrine on ketogenesis is mediated through increased substrate availability. As shown by Krentz et al., at high physiological concentrations, norepinephrine induces accelerated lipolysis and increases NEFA formation significantly [14]. Secondly, norepinephrine stimulates ketogenesis directly at the hepatocyte level. As reported by Keller et al. [15], norepinephrine infusion increased ketone bodies concentration to a greater degree when compared to NEFA concentration (155 ± 30 versus 57 ± 16%), suggesting direct hepatic ketogenic effect.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Elevation of plasma norepinephrine concentrations to stress levels (1,800 pg/ml) resulted in normal subjects in a significant increase in ketone body production by 155% (determined by use of [14C]acetoacetate infusions), in a decrease of the metabolic clearance rate by 38%, hyperketonemia, and in increased plasma free fatty acid (FFA) levels by 57% after 75 min.
Hello! I requested a reassessment of empty nose syndrome after a full rewrite by Jytdog, contributed to by many people in a discussion that has been long and heated, and included new editors, recruited from an ENS forum who were initially very unhappy with the rewrite. I think we've done a good job under difficult conditions and it would be very good for everyone's morale (as well as the correct decision technically!) if the improved quality were acknowledged. Thank you for considering this. Dubbin u | t | c 11:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 22#Suggestion - unify .27glossaries.27 and categories by automatically assembling .27microarticles.27.2C streamline glossary.26list creation.2Fmaintainance might interest you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that I've thanked you before, but here's a cup of tea. You give so much to Wikipedia and its readers, and we really appreciate it. :-) Exercisephys ( talk) 01:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC) |
For some reason I always thought methamphetamine was metabolized into dextroamphetamine only, no levoamphetamine. I think this stemmed from a long-past dig through the research literature to find articles comparing dextroamphetamine with methamphetamine because of some ridiculous claims that methamphetamine's action was derived primarily from the dextroamphetamine metabolite and thus it is essentially the same drug (which I was trying to see if I could refute). I just can't get over how stupid it was to miss that, especially after I had just looked up Desoxyn's actual API to confirm that it was racemic... I could have sworn the metabolic pathway in the methamphetamine article said dextroamphetamine, not amphetamine, but apparently not...
Anyways, thanks for fixing my mistake! Garzfoth ( talk) 17:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I was going to revert your reversion, but if I do so everyones blood pressure gets elevated. So maybe I am missing something, which would not be the first time. Several of these papers look and read like specialized primary references, that is the aspect that concerns me with respect to WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:SECONDARY, not to mention WP:NOTNEWS [1] [2] [3]. [3] [4] [5]
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Text "." ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Thanks for this edit [17]. I missed that it was already there once. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You claim I removed high-quality MEDRS sources from articles. Honestly, I can't think of that happening once, and don't recall any angry debates about such sources.
With regard to #s 8-11 in the draft list, all I can say is that there are articles edited by respected editors where such references have been allowed. Let's be constructive and work on making it a better checklist. Thanks, following your response here. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Seppi333 |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 9, 2016 |
Always friendly and constructively active at and around WT:PHARM and Template talk:Infobox drug. Seppi was patient and persistent and succeeded in gaining the first pharmacology FA star in over three years. |
Recognized for |
Bringing Amphetamine to FA status and Adderall and Methamphetamine to GA status. |
Nomination page |
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for work on pharmacology-related articls. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Anypodetos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Seppi333, why did you remove the content on Pokémon Go surrounding the effects on health? It was properly sourced by references listed on WP:VGRS and it isn't a medical article, so it doesn't entirely need to comply with WP:MEDRS in the same way. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This was your 4th revert in 24 hrs [21].
It is better to wait until fully consensus develops. I accept that as an appropriate compromise. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
All Aug 14 2016
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
empty section}}
template there. The movement of existing content to a new position isn't noted as a revert in
WP:3RR however. If it were, moving 4 different paragraphs around in 4 different edits in an arbitrary article would violate 3RR.I just wanted to clarify something really minor that I had done a bad job articulating in that thread... Even though my library's periodical database does recognize Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry as a peer-reviewed journal, the review you wanted didn't show in my search results until I unchecked the "peer-reviewed only" filter. Sometimes when that has happened before, I've been able to verify my library was right about certain articles not actually being peer-reviewed despite being published in a journal that is generally peer-reviewed (e.g., Once there was a footnote that said something like "Note: This article has been been reviewed.") Other times I couldn't tell if the library was right or not to filter something out (though there hasn't been a time yet where I knew definitively they were wrong). I can't say for sure how reliable that search feature is, so I was just pointing it out in case there were any indicators that might otherwise be easy to overlook if you were assuming everything printed in the journal had been subject to peer review. Anyway, I haven't even seen the source and I trust your judgment if you choose to use it. I just wanted to clarify what I had been trying to say in the other day. :) —PermStrump (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Seppi333 I added an image here to attract more editors [27], I went through the article you may want to add [28](i found just 1 mention of bodybuilding)it might be beneficial to the article...IMO(good luck!)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You've been warned for edit warring at Resveratrol per the closure of a 3RR complaint. You may be blocked if you make any more reverts on this article that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be a response to Seppi333's message left on Zefr's talk page in this diff, and removed in this diff; Zefr appears to prefer a blank talk page per past blankings one can see in the history.... Jytdog ( talk) 00:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
My responses are indented. -- Zefr ( talk) 22:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC) You said: I can't imagine that you aren't aware of the fact that a medical review is not a primary source for information that it cites, so I think it's fairly safe to assume that there's a non-policy related reason that motivates you to remove content that is cited to some of these sources. If you actually talk to me instead of simply revert my edits or remove other content cited to such sources based upon an irrelevant policy justification, I'd probably be willing to seek a middle ground with you and revise what is written in a manner that's acceptable to both of us. However, since I generally have no clue what the real reason is as to why you're removing material in most cases, I don't know how to begin to go about revising article content so that it's mutually acceptable to us.
The only thing of which I'm aware that you don't like is the use of medical reviews that cite in vitro evidence or animal studies and make a claim that applies to humans to support a medical claim in an article about humans in vivo. As a general rule, I agree that this is bad unless it is made very clear in the article text that this claim is based upon an extrapolation which may not necessarily be valid/relevant to living humans. However, in some of our past interactions, you've removed medical claims about humans in vivo which is cited to reviews of multiple clinical trials on humans. In the instances that you did this, it really irritated me because I didn't understand why you did this - you simply used a clearly irrelevant policy justification for removing content (e.g., "it [i.e., the source] is primary"). As an example, I know that you're opposed to the current article text in 3-hydroxyisovaleric acid#Medical, but I don't understand why or know which statements in that section that you take issue with.
If you're willing to talk to me and explain why you feel that the text in that section and the
Niacin#Research section (edit: your most recent revision to that section is fine with me) is problematic, I am willing to revise the content in both of these articles and adjust how I write content in the future in order to reconcile our issues with one another.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 21:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Non-free_content. IMO the large blocks of text you are using in the references are not a sufficient valid rationale. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite apart from the copyright concerns, are these long quotations really even necessary? It would be more useful for the reader if these quotations were condensed as much as possible to include only the key points. It is difficult to determine the appropriateness of the long quotes in beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid since most of the citations are cited several times. But one quotation sticks out. Do we really need to include detailed statistics? In my opinion, the results should be removed so that the focus is on the conclusions. Boghog ( talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia should concisely state facts about a subject. It should not discuss the underlying literature at any length.Also splitting the material between citations and notes makes it more difficult for the reader. Eliminating the results to focus on the conclusions would also reduce the copyright concerns. Boghog ( talk) 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Ozzie10aaaa ( talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Seppi333 Happy Holiday/New Year!-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Seppi333, thanks for the revert in VMAT2 article, I thought I almost do irreversible damage. I can understand that the scientific basis for the God Gene is not well established. However, if you look at the talk page, I think most of the people there agreed that at least some connection should be given between VMAT2 and God gene. God gene article has different sources of citation and most of them come from popular sources. So I think it is not breaking the walled garden clausal. Do you have other opinion about this? Adeuss ( talk) 08:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Great article! I've got another great reference and source whose content I would like to add. After that, please consider nominating this article for "Good" status because it is good. Best Regards,
Hey Seppi, a new FAC has new been opened if you're interested in weighing in with support/opposition/suggestions and your final review of MOS compliance. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Whats the OR on the dopaminergic pathway page? Its all secondary sources from reputable journals talking about generally aceppeted concepts and findings. Petergstrom ( talk) 00:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
andThe mesolimbic pathways, once thought to be the primary controller of pleasure, is now known to have no role in pleasure.
are not factually accurate or directly supported by a reference. Both of these examples (there are a handful of others others) are statements that aren't correct, but could be retained in the article after slight modification and the addition of a supporting citation. This is why I added an OR tag until I have to time to fix this later tonight (or possibly tomorrow) instead of deleted them. The first example isn't accurate because the role of dopamine in pleasure cognition hasn't been fully established yet; mesolimbic dopamine release isn't strongly positively correlated with the subjective perception of pleasure, but that does not mean that it does not modulate the perception of pleasure or affect learning/memory related to pleasure cognition. The second isn't accurate because dopamine isn't an excitatory neurotransmitter; it can modulate excitatory/glutamatergic neurotransmission by signaling to glutamate neurons through D1-type receptors, but it is not itself an excitatory neurotransmitter since its two receptor subclasses have opposing effects on the target neurons of dopamine pathways. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)The mesocortical dopaminergic pathways also increase the excitability of the prefrontal cortex, a region particularly important in executive function and goal directed behavior.
Seppi333, Im curious how does the phosphorylation of DAT explain the "phasic" quick DA release, as an intracellular response would take quite a while wouldn't it? Also, are you positive in increased intracellular Na+ doesn't have any effect on DA release? Petergstrom ( talk) 22:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
interesting to you? was written very badly and i just fixed it to get it on track... Jytdog ( talk) 05:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. As I am somewhat semi-retired from Wikipedia, next time it goes up for a FAC, should you think of me, please email me and I will post a review again. Thank you! (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 13:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)