User talk:Formerly 98

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia[edit]

Formerly you do good work and your efforts have improved Wikipedia. While we have slightly different opinions on certain aspect of the literature I hope we can come to some compromise on these differences. Any suggestions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For the excellent work you put in these last few years. Enjoyed the discussion. All the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Consider a break as opposed to retiring[edit]

I am sorry to hear that your experience has been less than fun. I use the word fun intentionally. First and foremost editing should be a fun experience. I understand your experience has some rather specific detail that could be categorized as worse than "not fun". I am very sorry that you have been disrespected and hurt. I hope you will consider taking a wikibreak instead of deciding to completely retire. In my experience you have been a very valuable editor. You bring a considerable intellect and a great deal of knowledge and education. You have, from what I have seen, been polite and measured (not to mention learning and using policy). Regardless of individual editing opinions I like to think of WP as a community, hopefully one with some warmth and camaraderie. Regarding individual editing opinions I think WP needs more editors with varied POV and background. Your opinions and contributions have been of value to WP and I would hate to see the project lose you. I am saddened to think that the community I see myself a part of has treated you disgracefully. No matter what you decide I wish you the best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I suspect the issue here was simply that I mishandled a disagreement, and failed to express my concerns in an appropriate manner. I posted a comment over on the Medicine Talk board. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

?[edit]

Where is this coming from? I know you are in an angry place, but really.... Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (striking, with apologies Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC))

Actually I really wasn't angry when I wrote that. It's been my position for a very long time that we would all do better to focus on the facts rather than questioning each other's motives. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been the subject of witch hunts. I am offended that you would claim I am part of one. The COIN posting is not a witch hunt. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of that. I apologize and have struck the offensive comment. I really don't seem to be able to get anything right these days. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It was nice of you to do that but not really necessary. You raised a point of view that a lot of people have, and I take no offense. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Offline[edit]

I am now offline as promised, and expect to be away for at least 2-3 weeks. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Recreation of an article you asked for the deletion of?[edit]

Hi, could you give your opinion at User talk:Sandstein#Proposed restoration of "Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction" page? Thanks,  Sandstein  17:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SSRI discontinuation syndrome[edit]

Moved to Talk page

More important that article be accurate than behavioural issues be spot on[edit]

Your threatening behavioural sanction in the paracetamol-asthma discussion is not particularly helpful. A wide variety of secondary sources indicate that there is an avid medical/scientific debate here, with causality currently indeterminate. While paeds docs have to make a daily operational/therapeutic choice (keep prescribing, or no), we do not. Best practice would have us state both sides, and not sit in judgment over the secondary sources. (In various places, editors have herein expressed, in Talk, strong displeasure/bias with meta-analysis and this-or-that other pharmacovigilance approach. This is simply not ours to do, to choose among expert opinions based on our own.) If there is a lively debate in the refereed secondary literature, and if a matter is not settled, this is what the article needs to say. Bob...cat may be approaching this uncivilly, but — see the extensive quoted abstract he presents (which I went on to verify) — he may indeed be pointing us in a better direction, that the current text needs to be broader and less assured than it is. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

why the heck are you bringing up ancient history, leprof? that was a very frustrating interaction and i for one am glad it is behind us. that editor was dead wrong, POV-pushing exaggerations of side effects throughout the article, and is doing the same thing elswhere. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
May 2014 is not ancient history, and, while I deeply appreciate the role that you, Formerly, and all played in the extensive Feb discussion on this matter, it is not a settled one — citations continue to appear, and recent ones across three continents still call for more thorough study in relation to the causality issue — and as such this will remain a matter on the table. I stand by my call, here and in general, to not threaten editors with behavioural sanctions in the midst of important debates. Yes, demand that revisiting an issue requires new evidence (new citations). No, do not otherwise squelch renewed debate. We all get heated about things we feel strongly about. Leading folks back from this "cliff" is an art, granted; but threat of sanctions almost never solves a fundamental behavioural problem or underlying disagreement. Nothing more to you, here; comment was for vacationing esteemed Formerly when he returns. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
that user was behaving badly which was interfering with debate, and was rightly warned. Gentle suasion was unheeded. Til later! Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
As the editor in question, I'd like to say I walked away from the discussion very discouraged that a group of editors appeared to be engaging in WP:CHERRYPICK and when I objected, I was threatened with admin action/sanctions. While I doubted sanctions would stick, as a busy person, who edits much less frequently than the other three editors involved, I unfortunately didn’t have the time or energy to fight it, but I stand by my edits and my objections. There were 4 WP:MEDRES compliant secondary sources presented regarding paracetamol's epidemiological link to asthma.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22065272
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23347656
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23292157
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338428
This is the edit put in the article: “There is an association between paracetamol use and asthma but the weight of evidence of the collected studies strongly suggests that the association reflects various forms of bias, the most prominent of which is confounding by indication.[47] The majority of the evidence does not support a causal role.[48]”
This edit does not seem to accurately reflect the sources and seems like WP:CHERRYPICK.
Thank you Leprof 7272 for addressing this concern with Formerly98. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
At my Talk page, here, and at your Talk page, I argue that the matter be tabled pending appearance of further high quality secondary sources, at which point discussion might—at a specific article Talk page—be very carefully and very cordially renewed, with aim of consensus via discuss in Talk prior to making edits. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

LeProf, I usually try to measure my words, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The behavior was not simply "not spot on", it was an example of some of the most intransigent behavior I have seen in 3 years on Wikipeda, and Bob got himself blocked for his behavior. He repeatedly and stubbornly defied the consensus of 3 other editors, and then dragged two of us into COIN with the only evidence supporting his accusation that we were engaging in "undisclosed paid editing" being that we did not agree with his point of view. He engaged in edit warring, ignored the WP:GF requirement by repeatedly responding to every attempt to discuss the issues by questioning our motives, engaged in copyright violations, and broke WP:3RR

The current text on paracetamol and asthma was set by a consensus of 4 editors just a few months ago. If you feel it is in error, bring it up on the Talk page. Don't change it unilaterally, the four of us are still here and I don't think any of us have changed our view in 3 months time.

As for the business with Bob, please don't ever post anything like this on my page again. I really don't have the time for this kind of nonsense. Struck with apologies Formerly 98 (talk) 04:53 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You misread the "more important that … than..." construction in my section title; I did not in any way imply his behaviour was spot on, and indeed said "Bob...cat may be approaching this uncivilly"… It's just my (granted, WP unpopular) opinion, that some stridency should be expected and indeed tolerated when important scientific matters are being debated, and that we should, at least in the sciences, make accuracy a higher aim than the highest norms of civility. (As I said, a minority opinion.) Some of my ivy science mentors were among the most strident individuals I know—interestingly, one wrote chemistry for Encycl Britannica—as was my jurist father, who was also shaped by his context. Not that we should ever allow individuals to become like Hermann Kolbe (all the worse for being periodically, brilliantly wrong).
But thank you for words at my talk page, and all well here. I will not go further into the matter, and allow no forum shopping for renewed debate (but steer all discussion to article talk page). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Civility barnstar.png The Civility Barnstar
Given for the generosity in spirit you displayed in dealing with my belated comment. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

This is unclear "

The efficacy of aripiprazole for the treatment of acute psychotic episodes in schizophrenia was evaluated in 5 short-term (4-5 week) trials in hospitalized people. The prespecified endpoints varied by trial, with the following included in at least one trial.

  • The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and interview and observational index of 18 core schizophrenia symptoms, including suspiciousness, hostility, and grandiosity.
  • The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), an inventory of general psychopathology that is commonly used in schizophrenia clinical trials to measure medication effects
  • The positive symptoms subscale of the PANSS battery - A subset of questions dealing with the "positive" symptoms of schizophrenia, including delusions, conceptual disorganization, hallucinatory behavior, excitement, grandiosity, suspiciousness/persecution, and hostility
  • The negative symptoms subscale of the PANSS battery - A subset of questions dealing with behaviors such as blunted affect, emotional withdrawal, poor rapport, passive apathetic withdrawal, difficulty in abstract thinking, lack of spontaneity/flow of conversation, and stereotyped thinking
  • The Clinical Global Impressions scale, which provides a physician-rated measure of the overall psychological state of the patient

Aripiprazole demonstrated superiority to placebo against all primary endpoints in 3 of the 5 trials.[1][2] In a fourth trial aripiprazole failed to show superiority to haloperidol; haloperidol showed a trend toward greater efficacy. A fifth trial was considered to be a failed trial, as the known active comparator haloperidol failed to show superior efficacy to placebo. Overall, aripiprazole showed superiority to placebo against endpoints including the PANSS total score, the PANSS positive symptom subscale, the PANSS negative symptom subscale, and the CGI in at least two trials for each endpoint."

The FDA does not write the application and thus I do not think they own the copyright. Which page number are you using exactly and why a 2002 ref? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc,

On phone so hard to discuss at length. Anything that looks like cut and paste here is from the FDA approval summary, not NDA itself. So I'm pretty sure no copyright issue.

The other issue is complicated and is something that I hope you can offer some ideas on, because I'm very aware that I am pushing the envelope here. As you are probably aware, I have some concerns about meta analysis. The positive spin of meta analyses coming from industry makes it clear how readily the results of these conform to the pre existing beliefs of the authors, and the procesd by which the analyses arr performed is not transperent to the reader.

The prior into relied on a meta analysis written by an author with a total of 6 publications under his belt, concluding that evidence for superiority to placebo was marginal. Do we take the analysis of this inexperienced author over that of the scores of scientists who evaluated this drug at FDA and EMA? Does it really sell $6B a year ehen it doesnt work? While recognizing all the inappropriate marketing and what not, this is no anti depressant. There is a clearly didtinguishable difference between a pt eho is psychotic and one who is not. And how does a drug that doesnt eork end up on the WHO list of essential medicines and approved by NICE?

So if you can offer some guidance here I will consider myself in your debt. I don't think the old intro was an acceptable representation of mainstream thought, even if supportrd by Cochrane.

Fuller version of this on article Talk page

Formerly 98 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GlaxoSmithKline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PATH. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "www.accessdata.fda.gov". 
  2. ^ "www.accessdata.fda.gov".