User talk:Literaturegeek

Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

Larry Sanger on Wikipedia:Etiquette

ADHD 2

Hey LG thanks for the comments at ARB. At least the page will be quiet for a while. Unfortunately have just finished the book "medicating children". It was a facinating read on the social and cultural aspects of the rise of ADHD from obscurity 30 to 40 years ago until today. It looks at what factors lead to it being commonly diagnosed and treated in the USA ( Canada ) but not the rest of the world aswell as the factors that have made it so controversial among the general public. Very well referenced. One of the interesting groups it discusses is the conservative right leaning as a group who have concerns. They see what is often forced \ coerced treatment as removing the authority of the parent over their child and replacing it by the authority of the school / state. Anyway still on holidays back in 2 weeks. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome Doc. Sounds a good book.

"They see what is often forced \ coerced treatment as removing the authority of the parent over their child and replacing it by the authority of the school / state."

This above quote might be worth adding to the ADHD controversies article. You are having a long holiday! Are you in South America?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Final_decision

Discuss

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Committee MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing references

Hey LG, a number of important references within the quinolone articles have suddenly gone missing. By this I mean that had been removed from the article completely or nonsensible ones subsituted in their place. Any idea what is going on with this as there is no record of this taking place within the history section? Is this something that a Bot might have caused? For example within the lead for levaquin we had a reference to the package insert that described levaquin being a mirror image of ofloxacin. That reference was subsituted with an article that dealt with the use of levaquin to treat an eye infection (that made no reference to levaquin being a mirror image of floxin) and the package insert reference deleted. Within the approved uses section we had an article that made reference to the sudden death of a pediatric patient following the administration of a fluoroquinolone. That was removed and replaced with a reference to athropy and floxin, that had nothing to do with a pediatric death. I am concerned that if I were to check all of the references in these articles I will find that a significant number of them have been garbled in this fashion. I only stumbled upon these as I was editing to remove any negative NPOV issues and make the article more drug specific within the levaquin article.Davidtfull (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Just checked the ofloxacin article and the same reference regarding the pediatric death was deleted from that article as well.Davidtfull (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi David,

This edit shows its removal. It is to be expected that some content will be changed over time as editors read it and tweak it. Readers can click on the wiki link to the enantiomer article if they want to read more about what an enantiomer is and on that page it uses mirror image to discribe it. Was there a specific reason that you wanted the mirror image bit kept? All 3 refs in that paragraph in the lede seem to talk about it being a an enantiomer of floxin. If you go through the edit history you will be able to find out who made the changes. Just click on history tab and then click on the "prev" (short for preview I think) beside each edit and you will be able to see who made what changes. I made some edits to the levaquin, recently but can't remember what they were exactly now but I am usually quite careful with not deleting refs and not mixing up refs.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find the edit diff in the history send me the link if you don't mind to see why the person deleted it. There may have been a reason, if there wasn't a good reason and it was a poor edit or even vandalism by some ip editor then we can just put it back in the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the lead referring to the mirror image was carried over from the original article. I have no concerns about it being there either way so it really makes no difference to me. Other editors had placed it there in the beginning and I saw no reason to remove it. It has been tweaked a number of times since then by others as well. I just thought it unusual that a valid reference was replace with something that had no relevance is all. I will double check the rest of the references in the articles and see if they are still relevant and valid. Those that had been changed without a discernable reason I will forward on to you so you can take a look at em if I can't figure it out. I fixed the one referring to the sudden death already. Davidtfull (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok David, hopefully there haven't been any mess ups but firward anything on to me. I have staarted doing some work on the moxifloxacin article. I have started moving some text around and also moved some text to the anitbiotic misuse site. I have also made a start of fixing the refs, placing them in the proper citation template format. I think that we need to do what we did on the adverse effects of fluoroquinolones page to the other quinolone pages (but more slowly), basically going over the article, improving it, fixing refs and wording and so forth. No doubt there will be edits that I do which you disagree, so let me know if there is something that you are not happy with so that it can be discussed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been coming behind myself as well making minor changes to clean up my own messes. Trying to make the articles drug specific and removing things that are upsetting to others. You will notice that one person removed the entire legal section in the avelox article rather than rewriting it. Not too sure if you want to address that or not. So far I've just let it be.

The only edit that I had any questions about is the one you did on the levaquin article concerning the significant number of forums found on the Internet dealing with these issues. I think your edit changed the focus of the sentence from its original intent. Shifting the focus from reporting on the vast number of forums to simply stating that there have been reports made on the Internet. Thereby minimizing the impact of the sentence. I had reverted doctorfluffy's edit as I felt it dismissed this fact and shifted the focus in the same fashion. Which of course resulted in her reaming me a new one for doing so, to wit:

"Although the meaning is clear to us, "any number" is an unacceptable phrase for an encyclopedia as it's too easy to challenge (see WP:V). At the very least it should be changed to "many" or whatever word you like the best which conforms with WP:TONE. A cite for the fact that there are a large number would be nice. In simple terms, the first sentence of the lede should always be the sentence one would reply with if an uninformed layperson asked "What is X?". If random stranger asked you "What is Levaquin?", it's doubtful that you would start rattling off trade names. Check out WP:LEDE#First_sentence to get a better idea.

My edits are simple things that improve the article's readability and help it to better conform to the standards here whereas the general tone of your comments indicates that are under the impression that Wikipedia is a medical forum, patient guide, or consumer alert bulletin when it is in fact an encyclopedia. Your userpage shows that you have clear bias on the subject matter and I'd direct you to WP:COI, but you state that you've already read it. Frankly, the whole article stinks of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues. There is way too much dedicated to adverse effects, controversies, etc. and it all started with your edits in February. The article is 10 times larger now and it's almost entirely "this bad stuff will happen to you!". It's admirable that you want to raise awareness about an issue that you perceive to be important, but Wikipedia isn't always a venue for that. Honestly, if you really want to respect the spirit of COI and the encyclopedia in general then you should probably stay away from this article and the related ones entirely as you obviously have extremely negative feelings about the topic."Doctorfluffy

Funny thing here though is the sentence she took me to task for wasn't even mine. This was my original edit of the opening statement, which indeed did comply with WP:LEDE#First_sentence rules. It was changed by others down the road:

'Levofloxacin' is a synthetic chemotherapeutic agent used to treat severe and life threatening bacterial infections. Levofloxacin is commonly referred to as a fluoroquinolone (or quinolone) drug and is a member of the fluoroquinolone class of antibacterials. Levofloxacin is a “mirror image” or enantiomer of Ofloxacin. Ofloxacin is a racemic mixture of which levofloxacin is the active component. The biologically active enantiomer is sold separately under the chemical name of levofloxacin.

Same thing with the sentence we are discussing now. There was a whole paragraph in the article prior to that sentence that had been deleted that put it in context.

Stating that there are many reports to be found on the Internet is not the same as stating that a number of adverse reaction forums dealing with the fluoroquinolone class can be found on the Internet. A number of reports is not the same as stating a number of adverse reaction forums. I also feel that the ER doctor stating that he found these reports to be whacky pretty much sums up the medical communities reactions to these forums as well. The article being referenced now is not the same article that I had used and qouted from. Within the article I had originally used (October 2008) he had stated:

"This problem did, however, grow into a cottage industry for malpractice lawyers; Google this subject and be prepared for an onslaught of legal remedies (AKA sue the doctor who prescribed that nasty antibiotic or did not identify the problem prior to tendon rupture). Some of the personal stories on the Internet are truly wacky, but this can be a real problem with significant morbidity. More on this topic next month."

Emergency Medicine News:Volume 30(10)October 2008pp 16-18

see:

http://www.em-news.com/pt/re/emmednews/fulltext.00132981-200810000-00023.htm;jsessionid=KhwNyZGJFp3Gnc7sW2pqg5H6CLf1915MpLhlfZbgcw1C5cFGjbZy!-1104825961!181195629!8091!-1

Yet within his follow up article, the one being referenced within the levaquin article, this statement is excluded.

Emergency Medicine News:Volume 30(11)November 2008pp 12-14

see:http://www.em-news.com/pt/re/emmednews/fulltext.00132981-200811000-00012.htm;jsessionid=KhwMl0Sdk0GcmHVM1GBr5NQ2TZQpLDprVkpHjL1Jnl49RG48Cwxd!940204909!181195628!8091!-1

This is another example of what I was referring to regarding references being subsituted. In the original reference he was making fun of the stories found on the forums as well as bitching about lawyers suing. Even though he recognized that these reactions can be a real problem with significant morbidity, it was obivious that he thought the victims were exagerating. A position he repeated in a private conversation we had had as well following the publishing of his article, to wit:

"I appreciate your letter. Obviously, you are passionate about this topic, and have great personal interest. I know your organization serves as a sounding board for patients and as a data collection agent, soliciting self-reporting. I wonder if you or your foundation serve as an expert witness on this subject, for one or both sides? With regard to me feeling shameful by labeling some associations wacky, one thing does trouble me regarding your fervor. I note on Google that your web site refers readers to free lawyer consultations and clinics specializing in treatment of these (supposedly nonwacky) adverse reactions, so I am not sure you are truly unbiased (no offense intended)...Per your suggestion, I did go to www.fqresearch.org , but stopped reading when I read: Having been abandoned by the media, the medical community, the FDA, and as well as Congress, it appears that the lawyers are the only ones who give a damn."

But my website does not refer patients to "free lawyer consultations" nor does it list any "clinics specializing in treatment of these adverse reactions" as no such clinics even exist and the site is devoid of any kind of advertising whatsoever. So once again his focus was on the legal aspect rather than the reactions. Questioning whether or not I was a expert witness for the plaintiff and he stopped reading anything on the site once the word "lawyers" was mentioned. And it has been my experience that such views are atypical of the medical community, so I did not feel that my referring to them was an abuse of a reference as you had stated.

But be this as it may, I don't feel strongly enough about it to turn it into yet another issue. Just stating that I thought your edit changed the facts I was presenting for the above reasons. No need to do anything about it. But you had asked me to let you know of any edits I was unhappy about and thus far this is the only one. I had recently made some changes in the levaquin article as well trying to clean things up a bit. So if you see something there that you are unhappy about that I had edited don't be shy about letting me know either.  :)Davidtfull (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I did look into the legal section deletion. From a quick glance it looked like the citations did not mention moxifloxacin, so were not specific to moxifloxacin. I don't know if we could justify readding it at present unless refs are found mentioning moxfloxacin (I did not read the refs so maybe they did mention it?) I think the advertising bit was the sentences said "lawyers are agressively looking for more cases,,, or words to that effect. I have changed the wording again to the levaquin article. Let me know if this is an improvement or not. The any number terminology didn't sound right for an encyclopedia, so was just trying to find another way of wording it. I see what you mean about changing the focus. Hopefully I have fixed it now. If people ask for citations we will have to provide 3 or 4 citations as examples though. The thing was was that the doctor was writing an article highlighting the problems of quinolones, being misdiagnosed and endorsed some very serious reactions, he just said in one sentence that "some stories, on the internet are wacky", the rest of the article was highlighting serious adverse reactions to quinolones. When I read the article he didn't seem to be downplaying the various reactions. Let me read that source again because I think that he does from memory talk about other doctors frequently misdiagnosing the symptoms or them being easily misdiagnosed. I was not aware of your personal communication with the doctor, I can only go by what he refs say when citing on wikipedia but as said I will when I get a chance reread the ref and see what I can do with it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side note when you shifted references around on the avelox article I couldn't tell if you screwed up the regulatory time line. Those items where in chronological order (oldest to the newest, and all inclusive) so if you had moved a reference from there and placed it elsewhere (and deleted the text within the time line) then the time line would no longer be accurate as a line item would now be missing. (just read your recent comments on the wiki pharm page so this is a non issue, just ignore it) But I do have to thank you for a good belly laugh. You had stated that the adverse section was starved of any information. Yet ἀνυπόδητος stated to me that: "There is hardly a section without a statement or warning about the dangers of ciprofloxacin." Combined with doctorfluffy's comments it seems I can't win no matter what I do. Damned if I include the adverse reactions and damned if I do not.  :)Davidtfull (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I think that we are both right. I think that they are getting at is that there are 4 or 5 big sections dedicated to negative stuff. I was getting at that say a reader comes along and they just want to read the adverse reactions and interactions section, then they are going to be missing very important info.

Here are my ideas

Shorten the Scripting abuse section - by moving some stuff over to the new antibiotic misuse article and leaving a "see also link to the antibiotic misuse article.

Shorten the social and economic costs and leave a "see also" link to the relevant section in the main quinolone article

Shorten the risk benefit ratio and leave a "see also link" to the section in the main quinolone article.

I can restore the couple of points in the regulatory section that I moved to other locations in the article if you feel that that is important but I think to do that we need to shorten the article.

more work needs doing to the interactions and adverse effects sections. Important adverse reactions and interactions as well as serious ones need to be mentioned.

Let me know which one of these ideas you think are good so we can get some consensus and then we can get to work on reducing some of the content and resolve the issues that anypotato (ἀνυπόδητος) and others have raised.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Also let me know which ideas you do not like. Then we can work on solutions which we both agree on and there is consensus on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a solution to the regulator time issues on the levaquin talk page. Take a look and see what you think. Also made a minor change to the social/economic sentence we are working on noting that these reports are spontaneous and added supporting references. Feel free to revert or make other changes if you think it still needs work. Anypotato will be weighing on these suggestions as well but I think we can arrive at a consensus rather quickly here as these are all minor issues easily addressed.Davidtfull (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ADHD again

Hey LG yes back from South America.

The book I was mentioning is Dr Jennifer Erkulwater; Dr Rick Mayes; Dr Catherine Bagwell (2009). Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 5. ISBN 0-674-03163-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) It is really very excellent. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The passage is page 146. These conservatives saw ADHD as indicative of a socity hostile towards men, traditional dscipline, the sanctity of the family and the autonomy of the private citizen from state control... etc. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, I have cited the book.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You are a party to this arbitration clarification request

I have filed a request here ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_.7BADHD.7D--scuro (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

would you consider....?

Hi Literaturegeek. I know that being singled out for anything to do with arbitration can be stressful. Let me tell you....;) Sometimes one overreacts in such situations. I want you to think about your recent arbitration filing. Was that done in haste? I would understand if it was. An apology can go a long way. Please consider dropping the case, personally I don't think it will go well for you. Perhaps we can use the moment to finally seek true consensus.

Sincerely,--scuro (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello scuro, I think that you have things in reverse. It was you who filed a complaint on me digging up old stuff from years ago which you had already went over in workshop, with a few very very minor issues by me. You then filed complaints on fringe noticeboard, then launch an investigation into Doc James, flag the article with a POV tag etc etc etc. Now, how is it that I will look bad? You filed "evidence", I then was forced to respond with evidence so arbcom can get a clearer picture. We were making compromises scuro but feel until the article says only scientologists say xyz you will never give in. I don't think the ADHD article is POV at all actually, few improvements could be made here or there, but the way you get on you would think it is a POV monster. The goal posts of consensus keep shifting, with endless complaints. Even several editors who share your POV find you difficult to deal with and submitted evidence against you. I think that it is you who should be offering to withdraw evidence and withdraw from your battle mode.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

question regarding the dosage section in the quinolone articles

LG, Within the wikiproject pharmacology style guide it is stated that:

Detailed dosage information is unnecessary and not recommended: it may be construed as medical advice and be easily subject to vandalism or uninformed good-faith edits.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide

As such should we now remove this section from the quinolone articles? Or do you think it should remain due to the dosing adjustments required for kidney or liver dysfunction as stated within the package inserts? Not too sure if what is being presented within this section is to be considered detailed dosage information or just a heads up regarding the noted dosing adjustments required. This is an issue that Nbauman raised within the cipro article as he considered it to be medical advice and had deleted a portion accordingly.Davidtfull (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is fine to add in information regarding dosage adjustments for certain conditions or people, I think the problem is is when someone starts adding in dosage information because I think wiki are worried, perhaps over-worried (it has been debated) that vandalism or mistakes could lead to problems for wiki and is too risky for an open editing project. It might be better putting info regarding dosage reductions for say kidney patients or whatever under a heading "Special precautions" or similar or encorporated into a already existing relevant section. If giving info on say kidney patients, be careful on how you word it. Don't word it like "You should make a reduction in dosage for xyz condition", better to word it in an non-advice tone such as "dosage reduction is recommended in patients with kidney disorders", then add citation, keep such statements in a factual tone, so it is not reading like a direction to the reader but is just reporting the facts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

then it is best for you to fail this proposal

Disappointing. - Hordaland (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I know Hordaland, oh well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And now that our man who’s best qualified to refute “fringe”, diff and diff, can’t, it’s getting more support,

diff and diff. Can you step in there, convincingly? - Hordaland (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is all original research opinions so it won't go anywhere. Original research can't be used to edit articles. I would just oppose original research and revert any original research controversial changes to articles. Things need to be kept to what sources say. I added comments to the ADHD talk page. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC

You've apparently forgotten to sign an endorsement of your statement. –xeno^talk 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, I have signed it I think properly now.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

an olive branch

Greetings Literaturegeek. I requested that Nja247 step in and offer advice.[1] He suggested a med cab. Would you be interested in going down that avenue? If you want to truly seek consensus and work together, that would be the best option. If your not interested in going down this route, let me know so that I don't needlessly file a med cab. Thanks,--scuro (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No thank you. We have just come out of an arbcom, your mentor has not even been appointed yet. MedCab's and other similar ventures have been tried with you and Doc James and they failed. I have too many things going on in my real life to live on discussion boards, especially when I don't feel that I have done anything seriously wrong. I trust that you will understand my position. My comment on the EEG section was focusing on the citations than on you personally. I do not think that the examples you gave are me personalising the dispute. As we are just out of an arbcom you are free to report any violations to the arbcom rather than spreading things to other noticeboards. I disagree with Nja's suggestion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)