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)

Named references[edit]

Hi Formerly 98,

Thanks for your help cleaning up Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder management! The article is a bit of a mess, isn't it?

I noticed a couple of your edit summaries mentioned removing references to primary research. I'm all about sticking with secondary and tertiary sources as described in WP:MEDRS, but please check to see if named references are reused before removing them. When a named reference is used without being defined, the result is an error like this one. Those can be tricky to sort out later, even with the help of a tool like WikiBlame.—Shelley V. Adamsblame
credit
› 04:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I thought these days a bot comes along fairly soon afterwards and rescues the full reference ... in fact I've come to prefer allowing the bot to do this for me (it's less error-prone!) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
In my experience the bot has always cleaned it up pretty quickly and completely. Is there reason to believe that this is not correct?
and thank you for being so diplomatic. I am running through it like a chain saw through butter, aren't I? Formerly 98 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Reanalyses[edit]

One day only there.

Thanks for the paper, much appreciated. I didn't follow what you were trying to communicate with the aripiprazole links, can you be more explicit?
Overall, I thoroughly understand that pharma has lost the trust of the medical community and the population as a whole, and some sort of patient level data access is coming. Unlike many others, I see this creating a lot of problems that will partially offset the advantages that result. These are summarized by the former head of the EMA here, far better than I could express it myself: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001202

Best, Formerly 98 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. The lesson seems to be that reanalysis of marginal clinical results using different analytics can help reduce the risk of misinterpretation. Seems pretty obvious, but the idea that one in three such marginal results should see different practical results is rather staggering... Those stray aripiprazole links were there before my edit, not sure from who or what.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I agree, but not enough of an expert to have a fully informed opinion. Definitely better if the re-analyzer prespecifies the details of endpoints and stat analysis before doing the analysis or having access to the data that will tell them how endpoint and stat method selection will affect the conclusions.Formerly 98 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reintroduced copyvio[edit]

This edit reintroduced copyvio text that was copypasted in by blocked user truebreath. Please address this problem as quickly as possible.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up.Formerly 98 (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Opioids article[edit]

I would like to know why you and another Wikipedia editor undid almost all of my edits (all factual, all with citations) on the opioids article. Right now, this article is very high level, reads like it is written by a pharmacist or someone involved in some way with pharmaceuticals (and the composition thereof). I was trying to add -- in a balanced fashion -- the many concerns with over-prescription of opioids and accidental addiction. Both the governments of Canada and the U.S. have declared opioid addiction a public health crisis -- why was this removed from the article? This is not an opinion, but a fact. I was careful to leave up all the discussions of how useful the drug can be, etc., but the public health information should be included here as well otherwise it is not a balanced article.

Also, this article is not plain language. I was trying (a first attempt) to do much more to make this article accessible to those who are not doctors, pharmacists, in chemistry, etc. It is a terrificly meaty article, but needs a plain language intervention.  : )

So, my question: how can I proceed to include all the information I know well on the issue if you and the fellow editor take it all down? What's the process? I've not had that happen to the numerous other edits I've undertaken over the years on Wikipedia.

I can see if what I was adding was controversial -- but it's not. It was all factual.

I can see one paragraph was left (of my edits), which I'm happy to see. But frankly, this article still reads like a pro-opioids piece, and there are many issues that are not adequately raised. (I'm not anti-opioids for the record).

So, again, I'd like to know the process for making edits to this page. Who is 'in charge,' so to speak.

Thanks if you can help.

kathleen5454

Kathleen5454 15:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talkcontribs)

(talk page stalker) this discussion belongs on the article Talk page. i would be happy to join there. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Merck & Co. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • oref=slogin Merck Agrees to Settlement Over Vioxx Ads], ''[[The New York Times]]'', May 20, 2008]</ref>
  • oref=slogin Merck Agrees to Settlement Over Vioxx Ads], ''[[The New York Times]]'', May 20, 2008]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me![edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Technical problems with the Finasteride talk page.

I've attempted to post the text found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doors22#Finasteride_Sept_28) on the talk page, and consistently get blocked with a warning about a blacklisted URL link. As near as I can tell, I've cut out all the links in the text, and am certain that the URL listed in the warning is not present.

Formerly 98 (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem was not with the content you added, but with what was on the talk page before. I assume the effect occurred right now because yours was the first edit after the new feature which lists references even without a {{reflist}} was introduced. Previously the URL was hidden within <ref> tags and not displayed; that may have allowed it to be added to the page. I have modified the URL to avoid Google; now it should no longer trigger the spam blacklist. Huon (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Formerly 98 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Deletions[edit]

You posted on my talk page that the most recent edits on the talk page were you asking questions to which I didn't not respond. This isn't correct for two reasons. First, your comments were directed at an entirely separate editor and secondly, you were asking questions about the PLESS study which has already been removed from the article. You even mention you aren't influential enough to reverse decisions made after extensive discussion, but several months later this is exactly what you did.

"I suppose we should talk about what the goals of this discussion are. I know that there has been a lot of discussion of this topic before, and I am certainly not influential enough to reverse decisions that were made previously after extensive discussion. What reason has been given previously for not including the observations from the PLES trial? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Thanks"

The previous consensus was attained much earlier in the history of the talk page or in the direct notes of the edits. Some of your points are valid - I did not notice that some people had given incorrect references or maybe the reference links had broken, since as I mentioned, the edits were made a long time ago. I will take your comments into consideration and try to fix the reference links where possible. Doors22 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

These edits were flagged [1] [2] and this text

"The American Psychiatric Association 2000 Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with major depressive disorder indicates that, if preferred by the patient, antidepressant medications may be provided as an initial primary treatment for mild major depressive disorder; antidepressant medications should be provided for moderate to severe major depressive disorder unless electroconvulsive therapy is planned; and a combination of antipsychotic and antidepressant medications or electroconvulsive therapy should be used for psychotic depression. It states that efficacy is generally comparable between classes and within classes and that the initial selection will largely be based on the anticipated side-effects for an individual patient, patient preference, quantity and quality of clinical trial data regarding the medication, and its cost"

Is word for word the same as the text here [3] Please advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Sorry about that. I copied that text verbatim out of another Wikipedia article. I've deleted it from the source article as well as the two copies. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks 98. Which article did you copy it from? If you mention the article in the edit summary I can than follow up. It might be that the link I put on your page copied from us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: I'm a little confused on which was the source article at this point, but the three articles were Depression (mood), Major depressive disorder, and Antidepressant. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For pointing out it out, since I was unaware of it[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Because Wikipedia doesn't need their advocacy for MDMA. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 19:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
hooray! Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for your recent collaborative work on MDMA. The English Wikipedia would be a better place if more people stepped up to help out like you did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)