User talk:Literaturegeek

/Archive 1

EEG image

i dont really know how to do it actually. Ill try to figure it out. The picture was taken by me, of me... so it shouldn't be too hard. thuglas^T|C 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Alcoholism

The article Alcoholism, which you nominated as a Good Article, is undergoing review. The article does not seem to meet the requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be promoted to GA, otherwise it will be failed. Lampman (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do an indepth review of the article Lampman. I have resolved a couple of issues. Hopefully with a bit more work I can get it up to GA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi LG, I'll try to help out where I can when I find some of that 'time' stuff ... any bits you find trickier than the rest - with luck they aren't mine too! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lee, a helping hand would be much appreciated; a lot of issues to resolve. I understand what you mean about time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok think I'm done breaking up the sentences.. am going on a stag weekend ( ironic eh! - think I'll moderate my drinking! ) so I'll do a more thorough copyed next week. If you do move bits around I'll clean up - and I'm pretty sure there will be more points for GA I'm afraid, but progress is progress :) have a good 'un! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You have done a great job Lee, much appreciated. Ah, well a couple of drinks might be in order to celebrate alcoholism being a soon to be a GA article, hehe. I hope you enjoy your weekend.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers - it was great - no incidents and even paced correctly avoiding hangovers! Stopped by to check in - the alcoholism vs alcohol dependence debate seems to have exploded - I'll have to read to take it in later, want to concentrate on the copy editing and merging sections I've pointed out first. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that you had a great time. :) Did the other guests avoid hangovers? :) Yea I know, it is the dreaded debate of alcoholism versus alcohol dependence combined with mixture of other controversies. I am thinking that it might be better winding the debate up for now as no consensus can be achieved. I am sure the naming of the article dispute will return at a later date, i.e. after the GA assessment has been completed. The last thing I or we need is a major content dispute in the middle of a GA assessment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - and yes ( mostly )! - I'm sorry, I'm good at finding and opening cans of worms - but they all need to be opened at some point! I've had another quick look before my head went pop - this reminds me of the MCOTW on Pain, it was all solved when we managed to split into nociception, pain (philosophy) and left pain to give a good overview of its history, terminology etc. Maybe that is where this conversation is going, and I sort of feel this needs resolving. Whatever the result the efforts on this article won't be lost as we can say move all medical terminology to the resolved article. As you have said the article is getting long - maybe it is because we're trying to cover too much - maybe we do need an overview type article - especially as there seems to be a few different medical types turning up... The GA queue has been dropped drastically so if we find the correct direction we can quickly get the others back in the queue. So in summary resolve this issue and I think the direction and content of several of the subarticles will become clearer... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the worms seem to be climbing back into the can now Lee. Seems the debate has fizzled out with no consensus for a page move. I don't think that there can be consensus to have both alcohol dependence and alcoholism as they both are the same thing, well alcohol dependence being the official diagnostic term and alcoholism being an outdated diagnostic term but common name used in society. I think the article is really starting to take shape now and we have lots of eyes on it which is a plus, so it should get through good article assessment without too much bother. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[undent] I'm not sure if we want to put them away yet, it would be good to get to the bottom of the can and put it in the recycling. I'm now leaning towards an overview article - covering common usage and it's breakdown by medical definition, and covering the percieved concept af alcholism as a whole - e.g. from epi section 'total cost of alcohol use in uk...' coers more than alcohol dependence by the look of it - and split/merge the medical article structure we have to the relevant specific conditions. MMy main issue that started this was we need to drop the terms 'alcoholic' and 'alcoholism' as soon as defined in other terms - we shouldn't use monikers for any diseases / characteristics, it's so 20th century! --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Many of the articles on alcohol are very substandard and need a lot of work, eg binge drinking, alcoholic dementia are two articles that need a lot of work. I am happy to keep to the 21st centuary and for the terms alcoholic and alcoholism to be dropped once the disease/disorder is defined and explained.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS !!! A fine day to celebrate - I see from your user page that this must be a pretty cool milestone to achieve! :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Leevan. :) Yup, it is a good milestone for me. :) I think that it is a good informative resource for our readers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Thanks

I guess it makes sense that someone called Literaturegeek be the one to welcome me to Wikipedia after I "created" a new article on a poetry book. Thanks. 72.244.207.85 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On User talk:72.244.207.85 you wrote:

I am wondering if you should rename your article to "Versed (book)" for a couple of reasons. With the title changed to "versed (book)" means people looking for versed book searches are going to get a relevant page. Another reason is versed is a widely known name for a drug and is best served as a redirect to midazolam. I think at some point someone is going to request the move anyway and it is inevitable. As you don't have a registered account, I can perform the page move for you if you like. What do you think?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly the 10 or so existing links already present for Versed were for the drug (though those 10 were dwarfed in number by over 500 links to midazolam). Since Versed has a hatnote so that reaching the drug article is quick, we already have WP:Soft redirect of sorts, so IMHO what you suggest isn't urgent. Doing so, however, would require the following:

• adding {{Redirect}} (e.g. {{Redirect|Versed|the Pulitzer Prize-winning book of poetry|Versed (book)}}) to the top of midazolam so people could find the book
• The half-dozen existing book links listed here would need updating

Since MOS:MED requires the article to be under its International Nonproprietary Name, going to the trouble to change the existing situation isn't something I would do but feel free to do so if you think it's warranted. 72.244.206.202 (talk) (f.k.a. 72.244.207.85) 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yea you are probably right that if versed was redirected to midazolam that a link would be needed at the top of the midazolam article to the versed book. I agree that it is not urgent at this time. I shall have a think on it. Keep up the good work and happy editing! :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sinclair Method issues

Hello again. I'm attempting to correct the issues that the Sinclair Method page was tagged with last month. Since the majority of those issues involve the page being one-sided, it is impossible for the person who wrote most of it (me) to make it less one sided. I wouldn't have written it that way in the first place if I'd thought it was biased.

As such, I'm asking the various people who participated in the review to help me identify which characteristics of the page need to be adjusted. Could you stop in and help? Robert Rapplean (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for doing that. I have replied to you on the Sinclair Method talk page. I do not think the article is biased, I wrongly jumped to conclusions about the method. It has sourcing problem, more references to reliable sources are needed I feel.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong

Testosterone replacement therapy is proven to be a safe and effective anti-diabetic treatment, do not remove citations, please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.32.223 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are not expert in diabetes, do not remove citations of scientific articles please. if you read the articles you can understand I say true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.32.223 (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are deleting massive chunks of referenced text and you have a long history on diabetes articles of vandalising, and edit warring and ignoring consensus. You are disruptively vandalising as well as adding a small referenced piece of text which you never got consensus on, which everyone opposed. You have been blocked before for doing this. You need to stop this disruptive editing and civilly and professionally have a conversation with other editors on the relevant article talk pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What a liar...see the discussion in november, there was the consensus, but some corrupted admins remkove the citations, LIAR!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.116.8.121 (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah but I am not lying, I read over the discussion you reference, you only got a couple of people or a consensus of sorts for including information that metformin could adversely affect testosterone levels. You wanted to go way beyond that and do synthesis and original research; you never got consensus for this nor for your edit warring, personal attacks, mass scale vandalising deletions of content, harassment of individuals. Had you conducted yourself more sensibly you would probably have achieved a small compromise. Sadly you seem completely paranoid that this is drug company conspiracy; when in reality the real reason which you cannot see is that your behaviour have annoyed people so much so that any good faith small compromise has been ruined and the person to blame for is you as it is you who is in control of your actions and behaviour. Now please do not keep posting here, you are starting to irritate me and I really have little interest or knowledge in the subject matter of diabetes and do not have any particular feelings on the outcome of content disputes on those articles. Believe it or not I am and have been trying to help you as well as the community to persuade you to cease your counterproductive hostile disruptive conduct.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BHRT, the threequel

Hi LG,

Yeah, I'm a "he" but don't worry about it. Apparently I write like a girl as many have made the same mistake in the past :)

I've asked TimVickers for more sources. At this point I think it is very obvious that the problem is the editor, not the page. Hillinpa hasn't changed his/her arguments in, at this point, over a year. Nor has s/he indicated any awareness of how the position statements by so many high-profile medical bodies can or should be reconciled with the minimal statements by single proponents (actually, I believe once s/he said that you couldn't trust any of them because they were all funded by the drug companies; see here). I hate single purpose accounts and am idly contemplating a topic ban. What do you think? I very much doubt this will end except in tears. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I assumed you were female because of your interest and knowledge in hormone replacement therapy, oh and the baking of cookies. :) You could request a topic ban, though it may not pass because there is no serious disruptive editing, apart from long-lasting content dispute. There was a long break of calm there for a while, which is encouraging that things are beginning to settle down. Hopefully the recent comments are not an indicator of a return to times gone by of non-stop arguing; if it goes back to the almost daily or weekly drama then a topic ban might be worth persuing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for the suggestions. Have I offered my pie crust recipe yet? Also epic. I'll wait a bit, but until Hillinpa drops the whole OR thing, I can't see it being resolved.

Don't worry about the female thing, seriously you are like the third person I actually like who has made the mistake. There's still more that I don't like who just seem to do it to piss me off. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No you have not offered my pie crust recipe yet. :) I think if the drama keeps up I will be advocating for a topic ban with or without you lol. Glad to be one of the ones you like, I think I am one of those editors who people either really like or really don't like, maybe because I am opinionated and don't walk away from content disputes. You have a similar strong will and endurance for these content disputes which is a good quality for wikipedia lol.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

POV pushers hate editors who know the policies, can source, and know when to apply WP:PARITY the most above all others. The worst thing a POV-pusher can ever do is revert and contest a change made by me, because then I use my secret weapon. I've got access to two universities and an extensive, enormous library collection, as well as a very supportive interlibrary loan service.

Much as I'm glad Hillinpa's actions are restricted to tagging rather than editing, it's still time-wasting and encourages others to similarly advocate for OR and idiosyncratic interpretations of the research. And that tag is itself nonsense, not to mention his/her "just read the archives" comment, which doesn't lay out a specific dispute or grounds for discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am good at sourcing but previously was not hot on policies. Being through an arbcom and several content disputes I now know the policies quite well and know how to handle content disputes better. I went through a burn out there which I am recovering from from bad stress of multiple content disputes which were going on at the same time and harassment by sockpuppets. I am very familar with disruptive tagging, soap boxing and so forth but doing little editing and like you say this then draws others into the drama who have minimal or at best modest knowledge of the subject matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly there are three new sources about BHRT in the past month or so, one is from a UK and New Zealand doctor pair which, given the European's propensity for nonsynthetic hormones should be interesting. I've got two (PMID 20000171, a lit review, adds little that isn't covered by HHW or Holtorf and cites basically only Holtorf as its primary source on the literature itself, PMID 20337216 which is a case study about a dangerous reaction to implanted estradiol-17B), but the third I'm still waiting on (PMID 20067429 and if you can get it, I would be very grateful - not even an abstract on pubmed yet). That's one negative, one positive and one uncertain but potentially very interesting (an outsider's perspective on the US obsession with BHRT from two countries where bioidenticals are mainstream treatment modules but not seen as either a panacea or risk free). I've tried looking up the authors to request a reprint, but no dice just yet. I've also re-read Cirigliano and am again impressed at how he parses the literature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, should be useful. Have you tried asking Doc James if he has access or asking on Wiki Med?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's been published yet, but I'll ask. It's Climacteric, I've several articles from them already suggesting they aren't hard to get a hold of, but I'll try it with him. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Got it, added it to the page, quite helpful actually! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellant! :) I don't see where in the article that you added it?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

[1], and [2], but basically two uses in Estrogens and Progesterone, subsection of components and compounding. Also of interest is the refs to Derzko, 2009 throughout. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the additions now, good additions to the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I trust you see the irony of the talk page discussion, in light of those particular edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I just read over the talk page, going around in circle I see. It may be necessary to bring this to admin noticeboard and request some sort of an editing restriction, which reduces circular arguing and WP:SOAP. Things are not settling down.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, given no-one is editing the main page towards a pro-BHRT POV, I'm not too...irritated; also given the potential for mediation, I'm willing to give it a try. As soon as mediation fails, or the main page starts to get edited badly with a strong, inappropriately sourced POV, then I have no reservations. So long as it's restricted to circling the talk page, I'm willing to deal with it. Touch the main page and I have much stronger feelings.

On a positive note, the posts are getting shorter :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have lots of patience! Not a bad thing though. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. What can I say, I love being right. And I tend to be right a lot on wikipedia. Thanks for your latest comment, I agree 100%. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand

I'm afraid I don't underestand the explanation: cur | prev) 18:56, 26 April 2010 Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) (84,936 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by FoeOfBigC; Paper said "not statistically significant" after controlling for smoking.. (TW)) (undo) FoeOfBigC (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The paper that you cited for the claim said that there was no statistically significant effect of alcohol consumpion on thyroid cancer risk. Your addition to the article said that alcohol reduced the risk of thyroid. The reference did not say that, so I removed it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding possibly unfree image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EEG_cap.jpg The poster willingly admits in the upload comments that the attribution tag is incorrect. As I state on the (unfortunately lapsed) uploader's user page, I was alerted to this image by another individual who recognized the patient. Unfortunately, I agree: this image appears to be a patient who is known to me who underwent a medical procedure and not a research study. Therefore, the image may both be unfree and, in the United States, in violation of HIPAA. Since all other sources I found online with the image cited wikipedia, I'm really not sure where to go from here. I can't establish that it's not public domain, aside from the uploader's comments, and I can't exactly prove it's the patient in question. Any help would be appreciated. Schz (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it for speedy deletion, if permission to use the file has not been demonstrated by the 4th of May an administrator will delete it. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Enochlophobia

Hello Literaturegeek. You've participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochlophobia, and this discussion could be interesting for you. Cheers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have replied on the talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment needing your input

Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a baseless accusation, as evidenced from a review of the article history. I suspect you noticed that, because you deleted it and instead got concerned that I am campaigning to get him banned. For your information, not so much to get him banned as to make him stop soap boxing and insisting on having the right to do so. Steinberger (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have struck the banned word and added in community sanctioned as you did indeed use the word sanctioned rather than banned on this editors talk page.

Apologies it was not you who wrote that; I never said directly which editor added it initially but can see that other readers may have thought it was you. I have reworded my comments, but why did you not delete these uncited commentaries from this article section? "Little anecdotal evidence supports them beyond the arguments and claims put forth by anti-harm reduction groups themselves." and "Critics furthermore reject harm reduction measures for allegedly trying to establish certain forms of drug use as acceptable in society:".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin

Hey LG any interest in being nominated for adminship? We could use some more people with mops around WP:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)