User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello! I've noticed that you have edited Wikipedia without logging in to an account. It's great that you've been contributing; however, I urge you to create an account. Here is a list of the benefits of having an account:

There are no cons to signing up for an account. In fact, you can find even more pros at the "why create an account" page! Signing up is completely free and you don't need to enter any personal information! Plus you can have a user page, which you can use to show your interests, style, or nearly whatever! So, unless you can think of a con, please sign up for an account right now! Alexnia (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi, responded to your note at Talk:Mental status examination. Peace, delldot talk 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! Replied on my talk. delldot talk 13:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Zinc has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Blehfu (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Please see Talk:Rhubarb where there is a discussion of your recent edit at Rhubarb and its verifiability. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn"t edit this page. The book in question doesn"t mention rhubarb. Please delete --


Will you [removed] immediately stop vandalizing medical pages by adding fake references and claims ref Giannini et al. or we will pull the plug on your idiot school. You have done this on physostigmine, rhubarb, bing cherry, nonverbal communication and others. (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Post above edited for civility when addressing other editors --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for inserting unverified material and apparent hoaxes into multiple articles over time. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell Talk 20:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I endorse this block, the citations provided in recent edits are a mixture of genuine and invented references. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Bing cherry is verifiable on p. 92 of referenced book.( AJ Giannini et all. The Psychiatric, Psycogenic and Psychiatric Disorders, NY, 1978) All nonvervbal comminication articles cited are from multiple peer-reviewed journals. You are wrong on these two. Regarding "rhubarb" I did not make that entry although my desktop was used.
What is AJ Giannini, AE Slaby. A speculation on oranges, puberty, marriage contracts and frozen foods. M.D.,25(5):51-52,1981? I removed this from the Semiotics of Ideal Beauty, diff Where was this published? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This a a legitimate journal of medical opinion in 1981.It is an historical review of medicine. It IS a genuine article which was peer-reviewed.

What is the journal name or what is the PubMed ID number for the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The publication is more than 20 yrs old and the journal is defunct, I'll see if I acn miraculously locate it.The journal name is "MD".

The entries and/or citations for semantics, semiotics, psychedelic drugs, Phsostigmine etc. come from peer-reviewed journal in the US and Europe.

I think that I found another inaccuracy. On an article about vitamin C, citing a study that used ascorbic acid, which is is not the same as vitamin C [1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No that's fine, ascorbate is the name of the ionised form of ascorbic acid, like pyruvate is the name for the ion of pyruvic acid. Was the "MD" journal an abbreviation for "MD medical newsmagazine"? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Sorry for the false positive --Enric Naval (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This addition link of deletion is much more serious, I managed to track down the article (PMID 8816054), but the text of the article does not mention either marijuana or ecstasy or detail any relationship between major depression or bipolar depression with Alexithymia. At best this is a misrepresentation of the source. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

MD was published by md pUBLICATIONS AT 30 East 60th Street, NY<NY 10022. The editor was Ron de PAOLO, THE PUBLISHER, jAMES e. cLEMENTS. (usps 336-340). pLEASE LET ME KNOW WHICH ARTICLE IS NOW BEING QUESIONED SO THAT WE MAY RESPOND.)(ie alexythymia) we have located the absrtact in question. Your reviewer should be aware that increased cathecolamine is associtaed with mania & decreased cathecol. with depn. The entire point of the article is the relationship between alexythymia and mood states & drug states. The hyothesized link is catecholamine levels. These are found with the drugs listed. IS anyone really reading our articles? We stand by all statements in this paragraph.

On which page of PMID 8816054 are marijuana or ecstasy mentioned? I read it, but they are not there. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

These are inferred from the catecholaminergic link and the association of symptoms of alexythymia with THC/ This article was written for a sophisticated audience as an editorially requested response t0 a previous article. Not evry thing was spelled out due to the nature of our audience Time permitting we wish to defend every single statement wich has been challenged. Some of your reviewers are either not noversanr in non-English language or don't understand the assumptions employed in the conclusions

You need to read this - Wikipedia:No original research. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not sure what it is you wish us to read.

The article eas original research published in a peer reviewed jouirnal. We merely cited tthis work to support a point of view.

As an observation, our coauthors are trained in multiple disciplines--addiction, semantics, semiotics, ergonomics, psychiatry, pharmacolgy, history, bichemistry, literary criticism etc. It may be that these multiple frames of reference are a difficulty for your editors. In the past our research has required multiple reviewers to fully assess our submissions prior to publication. This may have produced the current difficulties. We would be pleased to defend ALL of our statements and citations if necessary, and time permits. Our work was not vandalism, deleting our peer-reviewed work or keeping the work while deleting the citation is, however the act of a Vandal. I await your response.

I'm now convinced that you did not intend to mislead, and that while your citations were sometimes inaccurate and to very obscure publications, they were not invented. Please be careful in the future to cite references that directly support your points (without needing expert interpretation) and cite the actual titles of the articles. Adding the PubMed ID numbers is also a great help to your readers (you can use this tool to make this easier). I'll talk to the guy who dealt with this and recommend that the block now be lifted. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


But maybe before employing your highly sophisticated team of hypophysicists, analinguists, cunning linguists and psycho-eulogists to disfigure the Wikipedia, maybe you all should stop smoking that stuff and get a GED. We know that you are linguists and that the ladies are appreciating that very much. (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure your IQ is inversely proportional to your venom. Sorry for you and your genetic pool.

The idea of separate genetic pools is crap from the same kitchen that has cooked fascism, racism, segregation and genocide

Sounds like southern state or nazi crap. (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Attacking somebody who has just helped you is both crassly impolite and very unwise. In light of your attitude, if you have similar problems in the future I will not make any effort on your behalf. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)sorry, i thought it was a different person making an ad hominem attack, my apologies

i did not realize it was you. it seemed out of character. again i apologize

I'm sorry, that was a different IP jumping in to the conversation, which I thought was you since you did not sign your reply. Talking to numbers rather than names is very confusing. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

we have received your last communique. We"re pleased that the miscommunication das been clarified. WE do appreciate yor assistance.....AJG, RHL, and others

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I meant Linguo-Analysts, not Analinguists. Will you please forward this communique to whom it may concern. (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And the gents know to value it very much too, to be politically correct now, and not sexist. Mea culpa. (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Genetic pool? This crap deserves a reductio ad nazium. (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Per the above discussion and Tim's request on my talk page, I've unblocked this IP. You should be able to edit again. MastCell Talk 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


see her a ref by Giannini which has been used over and over

It states the algorithm for diagnosis wrong.

Opiate intoxication gives constricted pupils. Opiate withdrawal gives dilated pupils. The algorithm states the other way around.

The tree has no entry (psychotic, constricted pupils).

It also has no entry for sober and healthy. So the outcome is always some intoxication or withdrawal. There are more factual inaccuracies.

There is no "sufrol"

There is no "mesipramine", closest match is desipramine, and this is not a mu-agonist, but NE reuptake inhibitor.

The drugs of abuse do not necessarily cause the release of a neurotransmitter, they may block the receptor site or they may inhibit reuptake, or they may act instead of a neurotransmitter.

The sigma-site is missing.

Anticholinergic drugs of abuse are antimuscarinics, not antinicotinic.

Dissociative drugs: Dopamine release is not a direct effect. Other neurotransmitter effects are also indirect. The action on the sigma-receptor is missing, instead an attempt to decompose the action into multiple receptor actions.

Injection of a gram Vit C IM is a horrible idea.

Table 3:

There is no asthmador muscarinic. (Probably the muscarinic slipped in from another table column, sloppy)

Locoweed - he probably means Jimson weed, Datura sp., Locoweed is normally something else, Swainsonine. Causes permanent brain damage.

Mesipramine = no mu agonist, no such thing.

Borneol not described as a serotonergic.

Sufrol: no such thing. Safrole at best something like nutmeg, instant headache. Like with shoe polish.

Sedative hypnotics:

The equivalence table states clonazepam wrong.

temazepam does belong with diazepam, not with flurazepam.

Sedative hypnotic overdose is life-threatening, in particular with barbs, methaqualone, alcohol, he says its not. But he says it is later. Incoherent.

Benzodiazepine intoxication/overdose may require intervention.

To delay treatment of alcohol wd. until gross resting tremor and fever, hallucinations appear is dangerous. These are signs of delirium tremens.

Stimulants: a combination of desipramine with bromocriptine seems a horrible idea.

Dopamine doesn't cause rigidity, but dopamine depletion does.

Rigidity, agitation, fever sounds like a serotonin effect, or like catatonia or NMS.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Colt" is not a street name for beer, but a brand name.

"Night train" is not a street name for wine, but a brand name for cheap fortified wine. etc.

Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous are spiritual and/or Jesus freaks, who first require one to surrender to a higher power. (Well, I already did that, namely Bush, Hitler and Papa Doc Duvalier)

conclusion: This is probably for the students to find errors? Has also been found on University Dallas Texas site. I will not see a doctor after reading this. I don't want to end up as a guinea pig. What does Igor the hunchback assistant say to that? "Yeees master" (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused and self contradicting, sloppy work. Besides, psychiatrists need a shrink themselves, they studied that in the hope of one day curing themselves. They also have a tendency to narcissism and become belligerent, confused and arrogant when questioned in their authority.

Have you come to terms with your nazi "genetic pool" crap you cited? This is what happens when you put all too free interpretation on things you don't understand, and then jump to conclusions. Damn, read up on history of fascist ideologies and racism, that helps. Or is it still alive in the south states? Are the white minus-men still around? Maybe hanging with the friends, behind some saw mill in Ohio? (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --GnoworTC 19:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)