If you would like to reply in a thread that I placed in the collapse tab below, please move it out of the tab when replying or simply create a new section. Thanks!
Old messages
Welcome!
Some cookies to welcome you! 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:
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)[reply]
False accusation of vandalism
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I didn't directly address your claims of nonvandalism because it's highly subjective; even the policy you linked to stated this in the first two sentences. That said, I still consider skewing the content of an article so much that its citations don't agree at all with the text on the page to be vandalism. Seppi333 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least replying. This is a content dispute, NOT vandalism. Vandalism is something else and not an accusation to be made lightly. I reiterate my requests to desist in making such accusations and, where possible, redact those you have already made.81.157.7.7 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333, the IP came to my talk page because I put a welcome template on his talk page. I looked over all the edits and it doesn't appear to be vandalism to me. It appears he's just acting like a WP:NEWBIE. It might be helpful to stop calling him a vandal. He doesn't appear to have that behaviour and you can be blocked for saying it. Instead, I suggest whenever he does something that isn't a good idea like reverting, etc., instead of arguing with him, point him to the policy. This is clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. I don't know the article or it's subject, but as you know questions about sources can be handled at the RS board. I've explained some of the rules to him and pointed him to some of the policies. He is using the talk page. He's trying to do things the right way or he wouldn't have asked for help. Please try to help him where needed. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did exactly what you said, stating the precise policies I performed the revert under before performing the revert. I don't know why you wrote that I didn't direct him to the policy when I very clearly did so on the talk page of that article. It was after he reverted a second time (IE after I stated the policies I reverted under and had amended the page once) without any discussion that I issued a vandalism warning. So, just for your reference so that you actually do read all the edits: Talk:Amphetamine_mixed_salts_(medication). If after reading that you still find my actions do not suffice, I'd like to know what I should have done instead, since I already did everything you said. Seppi333 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, between our last correspondence and after I explicitly asked everyone not to make any further edits pending discussion on the talk page and in the edit history, he restored the misattributed edits I deleted under an entirely different section. I'd ask you what I should do now, since he has literally just circumvented my attempt to pause edits and discuss the issue by moving the edits that are in contention to a different section. See Amphetamine mixed salts (medication) revision history. Seppi333 (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, maybe I can ask you the same question I asked Malke about those edits. What would you do if our roles were reversed? Seppi333 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer; I'll do that in the future. Given the status, I can appreciate why you use an IP as a proxy account for editing. Still, I'd appreciate it if you'd wait for the talk page discussion to come to a consensus. Seppi333 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the conclusions from a Cochrane review and you must paraphrase sources rather than copy and paste from them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Thanks for the kind words. I agree - there's way too much misinformation out there - hopefully improving wikipedia articles will change that to some extent. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey Hordaland - good catch. My initial thought was to redirect the page to that section since it's the only article (section) I found that actually covers the three classic non-prescription sleep aids - H1 antihistamines, melatonin, and valerian; it has pretty broad coverage of more general depressants and sedatives as well, so I figured it was the best place for a redirect on that topic. I'm not familiar with all the sleep articles though, so there may be a better place for those redirects. Seppi333 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hey Exercise, thanks for the feedback. If you're referring to the recent edits in pharmacokinetics and cytochrome p450 enzymes - I couldn't find any sources regarding humans to that material after an hour of searching google and pubmed. The best I could find was animal studies which mentioned those enzymes; without a source, I deleted it per medrs because it's currently GA nominated (I'd rather not put CN tags if I can't find the information myself). Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I don't have a high attention to detail, so if I unwittingly deleted a medrs-quality source that contained that information, please let me know which it was and I'll restore the content after I check it. Seppi333 (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been very busy and haven't been able to get involved with this debate. However, I'll be around for the next few days. My concern was more general. I saw many of the improvements I made to stimulant-related pages reverted or removed, and I found many of the same errors and biases that I had corrected once again present (for example, improper treatment of enantiomerism in the amphetamine mixed salts page). Additionally, there were some opinions injected into the amphetamine- and methylphenidate-related pages that went against medical consensus and hued instead to the rather paranoid and faddish movement of vilifying or devaluing these chemicals. I want to make sure that these pages remain informational and unbiased, and I admittedly feel a little demoralized seeing my hard work disregarded and thrown away. Exercisephys (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again Exercisephys. If I've removed any of your edits which were MEDRS-cited and aren't already reflected in a change I've made, I would strongly appreciate it if you added it back into the article. If I removed it because it was included in a section I moved onto the page, I frankly wouldn't even mind/care if you edited it back to the presentation/wording of your liking. I don't have any desire to force presentation of article content in any particular manner. I just don't really have the time/interest to go through sections to add only new material piece-by-piece because a large update would like I just did would take forever.
Like I mentioned on the adderall talk page a moment ago though, I very well may have oversited something and deleted something that I shouldn't have, so I'd actually encourage you to go through all the edits I just made on that page if you're interested in doing so and make any changes you see fit. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge deal, but here's another example of what I'm talking about, from Talk:Amphetamine: "anatomically narrow angles" not sure what this means Fixed by deleting it (I'm not sure either) Googling (well, StartPaging) the term gave me a definition, and StartPaging the term followed by "amphetamine" gave me sources. Exercisephys (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the point in spending extra time to elaborate on an optical contraindication when I didn't do so for a far direr one, like people with heart disease, who are at risk of experience sudden cardiac death when using it. Even potential blindness is a triviality in comparison to that. If you want to add the source and a clarified version of the text back in, feel free to do so. Seppi333 (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point; there are more serious side-effects of amphetamine, so it's okay to ignore this one? I suppose my main point is that in trying to make amphetamine a GA or FA you're being too aggressive in your deletion of anything that could be seen as incohesive or undercited instead of taking the time to properly incorporate it. Patience is key; a lot of people put a lot of work into making that article thorough. I appreciate your concern and your work, you've largely been doing a good job. However, that last comment seemed a little oppositional. It isn't on me to cite valid yet uncited sentences/paragraphs that I didn't add. If you need help doing so, appeal to the community, but don't just silently yank them. (Refer to my user page) Exercisephys (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Formetamide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
P-hydroxynorephedrine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
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! :)
My main concern is really just the length of the section in relation to other uses, but fortunately a lot of what's mentioned is already mentioned elsewhere (especially in the next section on performance-enhancing). So, in an effort to reduce redundancy in the article, I more or less condensed the paragraphs into the main points and merged them into the existing text. It's effects on motivation and cognitive control aren't unique to ADHD, which is why that's mentioned in the performance-enhancing section instead of medical uses section. Nonetheless, I kept the parts on its effects in children where the sources elaborate a bit more. I also cut few sentences from the original page on primates due to one source demonstrating long term safety/efficacy in humans in the revised portion.
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)[reply]
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.
Repeating something in another section is not repetitive. If you want to reformat it to remove the talkquote, I don't really care about that. If tabbing a statement I make to clarify the language used, I will remove the tab unless it's actually justified (which in this case, it wouldn't be). Seppi333 (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive use of bold, outlining your text in boxes, inserting them in the middle of other discussion, and making the background of the text blue is disruptive. Please cease this. --Kim D. Petersen21:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Hello, Seppi333. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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.
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)[reply]
Re your message
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)[reply]
@Lesion: Ah, alright, I was going to look into the statistical methodologies of the various refs for comparisons, but that might take too long. Even so, I can still comb through all the stats in the paper today just to make sure everything is sound. As for the interventions conclusions, the conclusions that were based upon statistics were all sound since the hypothesis test results supported them. I didn't see anything even slightly unusual/off when I checked the section, so it was good. Beyond the statistical component (and checking for typos ), I can't really do much else since I'm not really familiar with the subject/field. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably have guessed, it was not a systematic review or anything... didn't use any particularly structured method of searching literature. So, considering we spend only one short paragraph on each study, there is perhaps no need to spend time analyzing the methodology of each... Main things are: (i) that nothing strange has been said when discussing the studies, and (ii) that the wording of the results was ok. If you have finished your final check just drop me a note. Please feel free to raise any other concerns in the manuscript. Just a notification before publication that you were happy with everything. Thank you for your input. Lesion (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lesion: I don't have access to Al-Abassi 2009, but I probably don't need to go through it since any two studies with distinct datasets will have some degree of heterogeneity. So in a nutshell, your heterogeneity statement in that paragraph is almost certainly going to be valid. As for everything else, the stats and the inference from the hypothesis tests all seem ok. I made a comment in the draft about a possible typo with "Al-Abassi et al 2008" under comparison of interventions - not sure if that was intended or not. The only comment I have besides that is that appending "et al" to papers with only one author (like the Al-Abassi citation) isn't necessary, although I don't think it's incorrect to add it anyway. In any event, the stats look fine! Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That paper had almost identical study design to Finkelstien et al. 2004. In fact those 2 studies were the only ones which were closely similar. I can send you the paper if you wish. Thanks for spotting dates and et al error. I don't think supposed to use et al. if there are 2 authors either, since it means "and others" plural. OK great, thank you for final check. I will email you again when submit to journal, hopefully in a day or so. Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Few comments on style
If there is not controversy between high quality sources one can just state the facts. One does not need to preface it with "A Cochrane Review" Of "A study in the BMJ".
Would typically try to summarize the sources rather than quote them
Generics do not need capitals.
The article could use some simplification. Wording is currently a little complicated.
Do all 7 of the refs support the last sentence of the lead? More than 2 or 3 refs is often a red flag. I would simply you the two best sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, after the first commenter in the amphetamine FA review complained about how refs in the lead made it hard to read (first bullet), I moved them to the end of the paragraph instead of by sentence. I cited only the 1st sentence of the lead besides that, just because I think stating something is a neurotoxin upfront is a bit contentious. I can put them into notes or distribute them if you think it looks better.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Anyway I disagree with that advice you have received at the FA for amphetamine and would recommend you switch it back and do the above :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmh649: that's a good idea. I'll do that with meth's lead citations before I GA-nominate it then. I'm going to wait and see what the commenter in the FA review thinks - assuming he ever replies. Otherwise I'll just do it on amph anyway.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Jmh649: normally I'd just use thumbs and do that, but since all but 2 images (the free base and the structure of lysdexamfetamine) in the body are diagrams, their usefulness is a bit limited unless they're displayed at a size that they can be viewed normally and read. At 300px, some of those would be pretty difficult to read - especially the one in pharmacodynamics. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some may be of sufficient important to require stretching across the entire screen. This may however give some undue weight IMO. Just something to keep in mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously impugning the man's character. Do you have any good evidence to back up your assertion that he is likely to or is the kind of person who would doctor the data in a publication? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthonyhcole: oh. Meh, I don't really care about removing it tbh - I was being the peanut gallery. Even so, you'd be surprised how often researchers screw up their stats. Though something blatantly spurious like that does make me raise an eyebrow. I also don't have qualms with making a charge like that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh. I've seen some atrocious statistical work in social neuroscience. There was a scandal a few years back around this article. The authors excoriated a couple of research teams over their assignment of correlation without adequate statistical power. The paper was originally named "Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience". It tragically, in my opinion, sank the entirety of one paper, despite the statistical error affecting only part of it. The sound part of the study supported the overlap of physical and social pain (rejection) in the brain.
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)[reply]
logic
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:
the vast majority of circumcisions practiced in the world are due to religious and cultural reasons
The existence of a cultural region where your statement is not true (i.e., the % of population citing medical reasons is greater than cultural reasons) constitutes a logical contradiction with your statement (i.e., the statement needs to be qualified to particular regions in order to be true, since its validity is conditional upon geography).
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.
@Bob the goodwin: Yeah...I realized that while writing a formal proof of the argument, though you probably noticed I tweaked my argument slightly to account for how his statement could cover subsets of the population in 2 distinct cases when I wrote that proof. =P By that time, I also knew he wouldn't really catch/follow it, so... hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry to see the nomination has been closed. Do you intend to fix the remaining issues? Actually, what are they? I'm a bit overwhelmed by the amount of discussion added meanwhile. If you point me to the problematic points of the article, I might be of assistance. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anypodetos: There wasn't any issue that wasn't addressed at the time it was closed... =/ I think they just don't like having old FAC's lingering on the page so they closed it. I'm frankly kind of annoyed by it. I intend to open another FAC for it once the mandatory 2 week renomination block has passed.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite unexpected. I was for promotion, and my questions/comments were not conditions, but rather suggestions on where the article can be improved. Should I have mentioned that within the discussion? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Sceptical Chymist: I think the main issue is that it just didn't have enough supports at the time it closed. Your feedback was definitely both rigorous and comprehensive (and rather helpful IMO), so I think your review was fine. I'm going to reopen a new amphetamine FAC in two days (Feb 5th) and ask several individuals who're familiar with parts of the subject to do a review; consequently, I'll probably be able to gather enough reviews when the nomination closes this time around.
I think the FAC coordinators take into account supports/reviews from recent prior FAC nominations, but if you want to reaffirm your support or offer additional comments in the second FAC, it certainly wouldn't hurt (it could help, depending on what the closing FAC coordinator thinks). Also, thanks again for all the feedback you provided in your first review. I know comprehensive reviews take a bit of time, so I appreciate the effort you put into it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wasn't too difficult since I had amphetamine to serve as an outline - and several sections I just copied from amphetamine (although I rewrote them to make the pages look different) and cited the Desoxyn Rx info instead of the Adderall one, hehe. Boghog did the synthesis section because I'm an idiot when it comes to chemistry (I didn't take a college level chem course, just lots of physics). I am learning as I go along though. ;P Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Honestly, I don't see the justification for the move, and I really which you would let me know before reverting major changes that I spent a lot of time on. I don't think we should use a brand name for a medication that is primarily prescribed as a generic. Exercisephys (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should be listed under a generic name like every other non-historic generic drug on Wikipedia. Do you have a preferred place to publicly discuss this? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I really don't see the reason in listing it under "Adderall".
I should add, as someone who has worked in an American pharmacy, that it's filled by default as a generic under the name "amphetamine salts". Additionally, I think the best precedent for this is Ritalin. The brand "Ritalin" is probably more ubiquitous than "Adderall" and (unlike amphetamine) no one knows what the hell methylphenidate is. Regardless, the title of the article is methylphenidate. Exercisephys (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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.
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)[reply]
Addendum... also the hydroxyl groups on the ethyl chain, the bonds point between the OH instead of at the O-atom. Thanks for the quick response. EdChem (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Boghog:No problem on the graphics! I was just going to do that part to take some of the workload off of you, but if you have time to do that, you'd do a better job than me. :P
Looks good so far; depending on the number of graphics in the final version, I might organize it with {{multiple images}}, but I'll wait until you've finished to worry about the layout. Just for consistency with the rest of the amphetamine page, the synthesis would need citations to each sentence, though I could probably do that part easily enough after you've finished. I really appreciate all your help with the chemistry-related content btw. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have redone the all the graphics so that they are use a consistent style and merged all the graphics into one template. While the cited review articles in turn cited all the synthetic routes contained in the section, I have also added citations to the primary literature for each of the reactions. Unfortunately the graphics now spill over into the next section (I have included the history section in the sandbox just to see how this would look). This is a general problem most synthetic review articles have. I could work on expanding the text to reduce the spill over, but the text is already probably detailed enough for a general article about amphetamine. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adjusting the images. I have made a number of additional edits and I think it is ready to be inserted in the article. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with that. I use Photoshop CC (CS6). If you'd like to collaborate, I'll make up a diagram similar to the one in the link then we can figure out how to include the information from your's in a manner that is intuitive to a layperson. Does that work for you? Ian Furst (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
@Makyen: Whenever that occurs, click the text box, hit ctrl-a, ctrl-c, highlight the entire existing article, and paste the contents of your clipboard over it. That will circumvent the need to fix a dummy edit. Even so, that edit summary didn't seem to suggest to me that you were making another edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolving the edit conflict, once I determined that it was a dummy edit, was relatively easy. It was, of course, just copy and pasting. However, I have to take the time to determine what edits were made because I can not assume that the edit is just a dummy edit.
Yes, you changed 4 dates from mdy to dmy and I changed 5 from dmy to mdy. The significant majority of dates were YYYY-MM-DD or malformed. If something is that close, then it is a good idea to go back to determine the format of dates first placed in the article. Unfortunately, date formats are something that people people will change back and forth. If it is at all unclear it is best to go back to the most basic test which is the first date entered in the article. If the article has organically grown to be 50-1 uses in the other direction, that is a different story. Finding the first use and explaining it in the edit summary can prevent edit skirmishes in the future.
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)[reply]
@Axl: If you look through my edits, I actually changed a minority of dates by selecting the majority style, unless it was a malformed one. The edit summary "date formats per WP:MOSNUM by script" was from a script. Anything that followed that was my edit summary. Almost none of our FA's had consistent dates. That means they'd all fail at that FA criteria. I made them consistent, and chose the dominant format (DMY or MDY) of the two current variants that have "use XYZ dates" templates. YMD apparently isn't MOSNUM, but unfortunately, a lot of older refs use YMD. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Before your edit to "Lung cancer", there were eight access dates in the format "yyyy-mm-dd", two with the format "Month dd, yyyy", and only one in the format "dd Month yyyy". Journal dates are typically in the format "Month yyyy". Axl ¤ [Talk]13:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry about the late reply.) You seem to be taking this personally. This is just a simple disagreement between two editors—this isn't about you. We both know that you're a great editor. Moreover, if you don't "give the slightest iota of a fuck" about the format, why should you give a fuck about the opinion of some random faceless guy on the internet? That's the approach that I take when editing disagreements start to stress me.
@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)[reply]
I agree with you that a consistent formatting style is preferable. I am not convinced that one specific style is better than another. I was not aware that your script makes it easier to use one particular style.
My suggestion would be to post a note on the article's talk page prior to making the edits. Propose to change the dates to the new consistent format, perhaps something like: "The access dates in the references have different format styles. I propose to change all of these to the format: dd month yyyy." Then give it a few days to see if anyone objects. The featured articles tend to be watched quite well. If there are no objections, make the change.
With specific regard to "Lung cancer", if you had made this proposal on the talk page, I would have asked "Why not make them consistent with the current prevalent style: yyyy-mm-dd?" You would have informed me that your tool only supports certain formats. With that knowledge, I would not have objected to your proposal. Axl ¤ [Talk]11:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.
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.
Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into the local language
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)
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.
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?
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!
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?
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)[reply]
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!
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!
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."
The VTA is really more of a communication node in DA pathways than the structure responsible for those things. The nucleus accumbens is the primary brain structure involved in addiction and sexual arousal. The VTA is interacts with the nucleus accumbens as part of the mesolimbic pathway. I'll copyedit that text on the Ghrelin page when I have some spare time and relevant sources for it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nootropics
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)[reply]
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.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds16:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
15:36, 24 May 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by JohnBlackburne: WP:AFD and WP:PM are distinct/disjoint processes. Also note the "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" text. (TW)")
22:18, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "Expanded the existing intro without removing anything on the page to once again...cut the POV fork. Leaving the coatrack for npov noticeboard")
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)[reply]
Amended my report to show six reverts. The article once again contains some <onlyinclude> code that John Blackburne had removed, so if you want credit for a self-revert you should do it fully. I doubt that you have any consensus for this change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know his reasoning for wanting to retain the page, but my concern is primarily about keeping the page summarized on or fully contained in statistics (or not exist) instead of exist as a POV fork suggesting they're distinct fields. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
@Axl: Sorry for the late reply! My laptop broke a week and a half ago, so I haven't been on wikipedia lately. There was/is no article that I need assistance with, but thank you for offering to help – I appreciate it! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi from Wil
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)[reply]
@Wllm: Hi Wil. I do, but I don't believe it's a necessarily a handicap. The ADHD article is actually quite well referenced and has a large number of medical editors watching over it to maintain article quality (i.e., edits that fail to satisfy the WP:Good article criteria, WP:MEDRS/WP:MEDMOS, or WP:POV are almost always reverted immediately). Content changes are often discussed on the talk page first as well - Talk:ADHD. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm 75.152.119.10. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User_talk:Seppi333 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
No votes are without reason on wikipedia; no reason, no vote. You used a template that expresses distaste for thoughts that detract from a guideline that does not tell people anything about critical thinking. When I said your expression was without reason, you did a reversion, which insisted on your right to incivility. Please understand that you hav no such right. My first post to your talk page, which you deleted, wuz a warning. This is your second. Bohgosity BumaskiL75.152.119.10 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^Lindemann L, Hoener MC (May 2005). "A renaissance in trace amines inspired by a novel GPCR family". Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 26 (5): 274–281. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2005.03.007. PMID15860375.
^Wang X, Li J, Dong G, Yue J (February 2014). "The endogenous substrates of brain CYP2D". European Journal of Pharmacology. 724: 211–218. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2013.12.025. PMID24374199.
Hello, I'm 75.152.119.10. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User_talk:Seppi333 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
No votes are without reason on wikipedia; no reason, no vote. You used a template that expresses distaste for thoughts that detract from a guideline that does not tell people anything about critical thinking. When I said your expression was without reason, you did a reversion, which insisted on your right to incivility. Please understand that you hav no such right. My first post to your talk page, which you deleted, wuz a warning. This is your second. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.119.10 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)