User talk:Steve carlson

Archives < July 2007 Attachment Theory Hi Steve. Have you given up or are you just on holiday? This separate article thing needs a bit of thought. It would be interesting to have a bit more history and comparisons with say Erikson or the 'cupboard love' theories and so on. I was also thinking, if we have the separate articles for Attachment theory and attachment measures, the controversial and unvalidated measures could go in the AM article along with the good stuff. At the moment they're floating around in the attachment therapy, reactive attachment disorder and attachment disorder articles. Fainites barley 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Haven't given up, just got busy. Wiki is something I do to procrastinate, so when I'm not Wiki-ing it's usually a good thing! I think your suggestion above is right on. I do think that reactive attachment disorder needs its own article since it is an official DSM-IV diagnosis, and the attachment disorder article looks like it is in pretty good shape, so we should keep it too, but we should try to move whatever content on measures that is in either of those articles to the attachment measures page. Steve carlson 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) I agree. Wiki is the ultimate way of avoiding real life! Glad you like the attachment disorder article. Like the RAD article and AT article its been rewritten at some speed after the sock gang got banned but they all need more work. I thought they could have a brief overview of diagnosis issues then with a link and the full details in the Attachment measures article. Otherwise you end up with the same material in 3 different articles. Controversial methods of diagnosis are very much part of the whole attachment therapy controversy though.Fainites barley 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Nice tidy up on RAD. The issue of treatment is a vexed one. What's currently being proposed is that the Child psychotherapy article be expanded to cover treatments for attachment disorders, both mainstream and controversial, rather than repeating mainstream/controversial treatments in each article. There's quite a bit more about treatments and diagnosis in the attachment therapy article. Fainites barley 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007. Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin. In other news: Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project. Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status. Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome. Dr. Cash 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Notability tag Hi! Per your message on my talk page: I deliberately do not remove the notability tag while the deletion process is running, but only after the the article has actually been sorted (i.e. deleted, merged, or it notability been established). This prevent the article from accidentally "falling of the to do list" if e.g. somebody contests the proposed deletion. Please don't remove the tag before that. See also #6 here. --B. Wolterding 11:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Removal of Notability tag Thanks for the "heads up"' on my talk page. This is embarrassing . (What does the tag look like?). Please direct me to an article where one is in place. I also noted in the correspondence from B. Wolterding above that there may be some differences of opinion on this matter. Maybe you can "put me in the loop" if there are changes. I have been working on the Nov/Dec articles lacking importance fairly regularly but seldom add my name to participants lists. It is a good project. Cheers! --Stormbay 17:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC) 9/16 Vandalism Hi. :) I got your note on my talk page. I agree with you that it seems likely that this individual has a personal investment. He or she has currently been blocked for the behavior, and the problem may be resolved. If it isn't, or if others become involved, we can continue cleaning inappropriate changes to the page, warn the editors for violating policy with escalating blocks if necessary and consider page protection if the problem becomes persistent. Frankly, I'll be surprised if the article is around that much longer. I would have nominated it for AFD based on non-notability myself if I had not been the one to strip it of so much information. Even though I removed the information according to BLP policy, it still feels disingenuous to nominate it immediately after. And don't worry about bringing me in. :) I man the BLP noticeboard on a voluntary basis, and retaliatory vandalism is nothing new. My page has been vandalized two, maybe three times already since he made his visit. Some editors put up "vandalism" counters on their pages as a kind of badge of honor. I don't go that far, but it doesn't distress me. --Moonriddengirl 02:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Pharmacology Update Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology! Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status. Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it. Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism. There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery. You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology. Dr. Cash 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Question Hi, I am unfamiliar with a way to send you a message on here, so I hope using this is ok. I was wondering if you think I should remove those entries that I have placed on the Edward DeVries website? The reason I posted them under the Discussion section was because I knew the information did not belong on the main page, but at the same time I wanted anyone, especially Churches that might come in contact with this man to know what was really going on. If they breach any kind of protocol and should be removed please let me know and I would be willing to delete them myself, provided I can figure out how to do that.  :) One last note on the matter, various Church authorities as well as the local law enforcement agencies have become involved in this matter due to some things this man has recently done in the state of Colorado, so it is a fairly serious matter, which is why I was so concerned in the first place. Feel free to delete this as soon as you read it, because like I said It is the only way I could find to send you a personal message. Txconservative1 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)txconservative1 thanks for your patience I totally understand about not using wikipedia for those types of interactions, and I apologize for any trouble I may have brought your way during any of this. That bit from the Colorado Baptist Association is true though, and I will see what I can do about getting them to put it online incase you want to check it out for yourself. I hesitated on using the director's name and placing his contact information online without his permission which is why much of that appeared to be unsourced information. The last thing I want to do is bring retaliatory measures against those I am trying to help by giving out who they are to the wrong people. So as far as I am concerned I personally am done writing about the man online, I am letting the authorities handle this one since it has moved in that direction. If you did want to contact Colorado for yourself you could speak directly with someone who could inform you about their concerns on this matter. I however am unaffiliated with them, but here is their address none the less. www.coloradoba.org But thanks again for your patience and help with my attempts at using wikipedia Txconservative1 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)txconservative1 Vandalization I'm sorry. I think it was my little brother's work. Hope it was taken care of. Casimiri 08:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)