User talk:Paul gene/Archive 1

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

Saw you've been editing awhile and no-one had welcomed you yet, so...


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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Fvasconcellos 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Bupropion metabolism.SVG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bupropion metabolism.SVG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the Bupropion page.--Nuklear 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


I put my best reference into the Radafaxine page itself. I found four or five places where a GSK quarterly report from 2006 was reported second hand, but I was unable to find the GSK report itself, so I got lazy and didn't put my mediocre reference into the bupropion page itself, figuring someone closer to the industry could do better. MaxEnt 00:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

With some effort, I was able to determine that Radafaxine corresponds to GSK pipeline candidate 353162.
Apparently, GSK practices unmarked burial of their stillborn creations. MaxEnt 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Found a more permanent association of 353162 to Radafaxine.
MaxEnt 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Check out my change to Radafaxine lead paragraph. MaxEnt 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

References, nbsps, endashes

Hi Paul. First of all, let me thank you for the excellent work you've been doing :) Now, for your questions—Diberri's template builder is the best tool there is at the moment. It used to produce abbreviated journal names, which I prefer, but doesn't anymore, as it simply gathers information directly from PubMed and formats it; something must have changed regarding output from the PubMed system. I wouldn't know about that, although the man himself probably does. When I add references, I change the hyphens into en dashes directly in the template builder; I altered my keyboard layout for easy dash input long ago, so that makes it faster :) I don't think there is any tool to automatically add non-breaking spaces where needed. The best thing to do, if a stretch for most contributors, is to read up on WP:MOSNUM and try to incorporate it into your editing practices.

wikEd, by Cacycle (talk · contribs), is an almost-WYSIWIG editor which can be added to your monobook. I've never really gotten used to it, but many, many contributors use it regularly. A list of all the features can be found here. Sorry, but you did mean editors as in software, right? If you meant people who edit, that's another story!

As for "less clean-up work for you to do", please don't worry about that! This sort of thing (reference formatting, dashes, spaces, etc.) is hardly any trouble at all, at least to me; as a matter of fact, if there's anything else I can do for you please let me know. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I can't really see a significant difference here; had any inaccuracy been introduced? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
OK; take it easy :) I'd personally write "an MAOI" but I guess that's a difference of opinion. As for any inaccuracies due to the copy editing, please go ahead and fix them, but bear in mind that they were introduced as a good faith effort to make the article more accessible to lay readers. Sorry to insist upon this, but just a friendly note—edit summaries such as "correcting Person's inaccuracies" may be taken the wrong way... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to second that; it's troubling to find edit summaries and sections headings singling out another editor's good faith edits. That sort of thing shouldn't pop up on anyone's watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This also bothered me... see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, and as for the MAOI bit, A and an. Regardless of what letter a word starts with, if it's *pronounced* with a vowel sound at the beginning ("em"), it takes "an". It could be argued that the abbreviation MAOI is only written shorthand, and that in reading it out loud one would actually say "a monoamine oxidase inhibitor", but I think most people would simply read the letters out, so it would take "an". --Galaxiaad 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to your comment on my talk page: thank you. Looking at my comment now, it seems a little snippy, which is not what I intended, so I'm glad it didn't put you on the defensive. I still don't think it was necessary to mention Outriggr by name, since by nature an edit summary is kind of a parting shot. That guideline sounds like it's talking about pointing out an editor's mistake *to that editor* to let them know why you believe they're wrong. However, I appreciate your edits too; obviously bupropion would not be where it is now without you. Thank you for the respectful comment, and I hope I've done better this time. (And it never occurred to me that some people pronounce MAO as "meyo"!) --Galaxiaad 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Me either, for what it's worth. The article passed, by the way, and is now featured. Thank you again for your contributions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I parse "MAOI" as "inhibitor". I'm sure a glance at PubMed will find more articles with titles such as this one and occurrences of this particular collocation. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Paul. Here's the relevant passage, ipsis verbis:

In the absence of placebo-controlled data to confirm the attribution of tics to bupropion exposure, the use of bupropion with appropriate monitoring in children with ADHD and tics deserves consideration if other approaches have not been successful.

By the way, Mr Bungle (talk · contribs) has admirably rewritten the "Overdose" section. I hope you'll find it improved. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re. dosage information: I myself don't think it would be medical advice. WP:MEDMOS, however, argues that such information can be construed as such; I can't disagree entirely. As we've both seen, what does and doesn't constitute medical advice is still to be decided :) I am divided in thinking that (1) such information might make the article more comprehensive, particularly if accompanied by relevant, sourced commentary (e.g. higher doses associated with significant increase in adverse effects) and (2) it is localized (approved dosage may vary by country), does not encompass off-label use and, again as mentioned in MEDMOS, may become the subject of vandalism and disputes. The isotretinoin article was recently the object of such a dispute, with one editor adding unsourced claims as to the efficacy of low doses.
Perhaps I shouldn't have been so forceful with my "defense" of the overdose section, particularly as, in the end, Mr Bungle was responsible for improving it and I didn't do much :) I still think it was worth keeping, though. Why do you ask about the dosage info—would you like to add it back? Perhaps it's time we tackle this once and for all and discuss just how appropriate such information is. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you've gotten in touch with Colin; I was just about to do so myself and got sidetracked. I recommend we wait for his input; he's taking a short wikibreak, and if we want real consensus this time, we'd best get a second note of the main author's opinion :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Price discussion

The discussion of prices in Modafinil is unusual, but are you sure it is against guidelines? ←BenB4 11:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means you expect the price to change quickly? ←BenB4 10:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If the prices are published in primary sources like catalogs, or discussed in secondary sources, that's not OR. The reason I bring this up is that every news article I've ever read about it has mentioned how expensive it is. ←BenB4 10:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Paul,

I hope we can collaborate on Aspirin to make it a great article. I'm at a disadvantage to you in that I'm just a layperson with a layperson's book (and all the many flaws it contains :-). Frankly, a Ladybird book on Aspirin would satisfy WP:V but we all want to do better than that. Currently, parts of Aspirin's history are unsourced, incomplete and possibly incorrect. I could fix these issues but I'd have to cite Jeffreys as the source since it is what I've got. Perhaps you've got some better sources and the time to do that instead of me? If not, would you mind if I went ahead? If the text ends up with something you feel is incorrect, then we can discuss (I won't fight). Also, if I do this, you could replace some of my citations with better sources if they are available and match the text. Ultimately, Jeffreys doesn't cover everything and I've noted in the "History: a review" where we need to find other sources. I'd love if you could comment on my review and hopefully answer some of the questions/requests.

Cheers, Colin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talkcontribs) 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Paul. I usually reserve semi-protection for heavy vandalism (e.g. many unproductive edits a day) or articles where vandalism isn't being reverted quickly enough. The past few vandal edits to fluoxetine were reverted almost immediately, except for this one, which was also the only truly "dangerous" edit (introducing a hard-to-spot factual inaccuracy). I really don't think protection is necessary at the time. If you do think it's warranted, please feel free to leave a note at WP:RFPP, and another admin will review it—I may of course be wrong :) Hope you're doing well, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Genotoxic TCA

Hi Paul, You reverted my comments about the genotoxity of TCAs, and said that the srudy was disproven. I looked up the study you talked about. I diod not know this study, so thank you very much. It was very interesting. But to my mind the genotoxity of TCA in Drosophila Melanogaster has not been disproven in this study. The TCAs mentioned are still proven to be genotosic in Drosophila Melanogaster, but it seems that this study found no link between genotoxic TCAs and breast cancer. Thats good news to my mind... but i think it still should be mentioned that these TCAS have been found to be genotoxic. In other countries (such as Germnay) this is mentuioned in the professionals information. to give you an example: I am sorry, it is in German, hope you can understand it. So i think genotoxity should be mentioned, breast cancer should be not mentioned. How do you think about this. Sorry, english is not my native language :). I hope you understood me nontheless :) Smaug77 —Preceding comment was added at 16:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Do you have a diff to solidify your claim at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananeuzumab that this was a definite attempt at hoaxing? I'm currently inclined to block the accounts and that could seal the deal... — Scientizzle 05:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Purportedly valid names for yet-nonexistent compounds? Indeed, I'd like to see that diff—which account's user page? Even if this was not a deliberate bad-faith attempt, it's as bad as one. Not cool. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Paul gene (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Main page

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your comments to the article itself, could you put them on the talk page instead? Thanks much. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot talk 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter what your beef with the mainpage summary is, it is not appropriate to overwrite the article with your request. Keep it to talk pages only, and please note that you can and will be temporarily editblocked for disrupting Wikipedia if this continues. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not a bot. I guess I don't. Care to explain? Peace, delldot talk 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, gotta go to bed. If you leave me a note, I'll see it tonight. Peace, delldot talk 15:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin, and all I needed was a couple of minutes to review the issue. Consider it done. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I wasn't around but I left for work shortly after leaving that message. I'm glad it's all worked out, but please don't do anything of this sort again. It's a pretty blatant violation of WP:POINT. Best (and Happy Holidays yourself), Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy (Old) New Year!

Fireworks in monterrey.jpg

Two weeks too late, you say? Not in the Julian calendar!
Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

Fluoxetine Page

"Dear Xris0,

Even before you restored your controversial paragraph in the Fluoxetine article, I had been reluctant to delete it. I had actually moved it to the Talk page, with the corresponding explanation (see Talk:Fluoxetine#Fluoxetine and suicidality). What you say does ring true to me; unfortunately, it is hard to come up with any solid evidence in favor of the paragraph you wrote. Let's work on this together. Having solid evidence will give your point more weight. And on the other hand, it is not good for the article to have a highly controversial opinion without attribution. Even as you originally wrote it, there is no support for it in the following paragraphs- see the diff- [3] Paul gene (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"

Hi Paul, thanks for the message. I apologize for not putting in more details in the edit or putting in the citations, school is time consuming! I agree with what you wrote and I will try to find some citations. I just think it's pretty important to represent the non-pharmaceutical company viewpoint because, despite the fact that many demonizing them for the wrong reasons, there have been some great analyses by intelligent scientists that appear to reveal profound bias that would be great to get into the article with some good citations. If you are perchance interested in the authors outside of wiki and are not yet familiar with them, Dr. Breggin I think represents the extreme anti-pharmaceutical end of psychiatry, and Dr. Healy a good balance (despite I believe losing a job for being outspoken on this subject!). I think the journals have been giving both a them a hard time publishing on the subject, I'm guessing (perhaps wrongly) due to associations of the editorial boards, but despite this they have gotten material successfully published over the years (both peer reviewed journals and popular literature). Might be a couple weeks but I'll dig the citations up before re-instating the material we're talking about. Thanks for your efforts to clean up this article! --Xris0 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


I hesitated to click on the video link. Didn't really want to see a film of floppy willies at this time in the morning (or any time for that matter). But it was really just a powerpoint slide.

My comment on MEDMOS wasn't whether some medical articles have had YouTube video links posted, but whether this was a major problem specific to medical articles. Those who spend their time refining our main policy/guildline pages don't like to see it repeated all over the place. That leads to inconsistencies when policies are tweaked. WP:EL should be cited to remove undesirable video links and such like, not WP:MEDMOS.

An example: some surgeon posts a video of a hip replacement op, or perhaps a video showing how some piece of equipment works. This could be quite an effective learning aid, and if copyright hasn't been infringed, may be OK. So for MEDMOS to say "no YouTube" is actually exceeding policy and the main guidelines. Colin°Talk 07:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition and mental health

Why are you deleting any reference to the subject. There are unique and quality studies in each realm of mental disorders, however, you are removing them. Gnif global (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Please revert yourself. You are seeing problems where there are none. Colin°Talk 12:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But your objection on the first mention is a problem you have read into the guideline, rather than a problem with the guideline. WLU agrees. If you can accept that Tourette is unharmed by this guideline, please reconsider your objection. Nbauman is only one editor, and he seems to want a completely prescriptive guideline that even robots could adhere to. That isn't going to happen. Colin°Talk 13:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SVG and raster images

I've just noticed, your SVG image over at Image:Bupropion metabolism.svg appears to actually be just a raster image (specifically Image:Bupropion metabolism.png) that's been converted into XML using base64 encoding for the binary data. This may represent a misunderstanding on your part as to what the intention of a vector graphic format like SVG is for, or perhaps a misuse of whatever program it was that you used to convert that image. Normally when converting an image from raster to vector you'll need to get a program that can trace the lines (Inkscape is my personal favorite), though in a case like this one with chemical diagrams and text it'd probably be better to recreate it using more specialized tools. It's not very important in this case since the image isn't used anywhere, I just figured I'd drop a note in case you wanted to do more SVG conversions in the future. Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


I'll have a look :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there's more—it's just that I have a Thursday deadline and it is now... oh, look—freak-out time. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Paul. Question—the "Pharmacokinetics" section states "Its half-life in the body is 1345 hours". Is that supposed to be 13–45 hours? :) Anyway, I thought it was a narrower range. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope so :) Any article heavy on technical content (in this case, pharmacology and trial results) will be on the low (high?) end of the readability scale, but I don't think it's inaccessible to the educated reader... It's certainly up there with bupropion, and I don't think that was a problem. I am so sorry for not providing any more comments yet, but I was hit hard by a sinus infection this week and am currently negotiating standing up and having a two-digit body temperature for the first time in three days. I have image requests backed up, articles I'd like to comment on—I will add the rest of my two cents, even if it's at FAC :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Did I do this? Sorry, I have no idea how that happened—Twinkle malfunction, perhaps? Anyway, I thought you'd like to know I'm just (a) waiting for Casliber's edits and (b) mulling over a few possible tweaks to the "Controversy" section before supporting. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Paul, how would you feel about the following line inserted in history? I am musing on striking a balance between setting some context, article size and too much irrelevant material, so...
Drugs with serotonin activity were initially researched in the 1970s with a view to treating hypertension, however, their antidepressant properties became apparent with the drug zimelidine.

this came from Healy p. 168. I am not too familiar with eary history of these drugs so is this accurate? I figured palcing this would help set some context without being onerously tangential. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The other thing would be a single sentence noting when the role of 5HT became prominent in theory of depression in the US, with a link to discussion elsewhere. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

References on aspirin

Hi, you have removed several references from Aspirin as being false or not relevant in the way they are cited. I do wonder if on some of them, such as [1], the reference does in fact support the material - even if it is not mentioned in the abstract, the full text of the article may still have information that supports the sentence, could it not? Personally, I have not read the article in question, nor have I read several other of the articles you removed as citations, but do you think maybe one should be a little careful when removing such sourced information? I realize some people do do this, but I doubt that many editors would intentionally introduce sources that are not relevant to the material. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong; I'm just curious if you have double checked all of these references. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have checked a full text if it were a well and competently written article. It is not. I checked, however, the full text for the reference you mentioned. And no, the full text does not support that nonsense. 103 out of 160 people had GI symptoms, not 160. In any case this study cannot be used to establish the frequency of GI symptoms that can be specifically attributed to aspirin. To do that it had to be randomized and, ideally, blinded. Second, using citations, which are at best tangential to the material they purport to prove, is a common phenomenon on WP. I would not guess what its causes are. To make everybody's life easier, the WP guidelines generally recommend that in the onus of finding a proof is on the person who inserts information into the article. Cheers, Paul Gene (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible cool project

I noticed your recent edits to Clinical depression regarding use of supplements for treatment. It seems like this section could get extremely long very quickly. Would you like to collaborate on an article proper for Supplemental treatment of clinical depression or something like that? I'm not particularly knowledgeable, but I have access to journals and know plenty about wiki-formatting and that sort of thing, plus I'm very interested in the topic.--Gimme danger (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sertraline is a Featured article

(drum roll) Congratulations, Paul. Nice work as usual, and you got some fine editors to assist you ;) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Neuronew5.png The WikiProject Neuroscience Award
Here's to Paul Gene for developing & redeveloping sertraline and bupropion thru FAC successfully.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar, and congrats on the FA! --Galaxiaad (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK what now?

What is next on your agenda? I had mused on working up chlorpromazine and clozapine and I know Fvasconcellos is also keen on the latter one...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am undecided. I was thinking about something small and historical like indalpine and zimelidine, or something popular like fluoxetine and citalopram, or something I would like to know more about like resveratrol, kava and selegiline. But if you or Fvasconcellos start working on something else, just let me know and I will help. Paul Gene (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullets or prose? The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that prose is the preferred style

Hi, I changed some bulleted lists in the treatments section of the Depression article to prose, following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which states that "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." The Manual says that "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, because prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context," while a list does not. "Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." As well, when you take bulleted points and convert them to prose, you can indicate the importance, usage, or other comparisons for each example. You changed the section back to bullets, on the grounds that you like the bullets better. In this case, though, I argue it should be the widely accepted Wikipedia style conventions which we should follow, not any single editor's preferences. As well, this style issue goes beyond Wikipedia: look at Encyclopedia Britannica -- prose is the dominant way of presenting information in that reference.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


If you get a chance, please take another look at aspirin. I've checked out the references, and clarified the sentence on pancreatic cancer (the other experimental, cancer-related references checked out as agreeing with their cited material when I checked them). I am satisfied that the rest of the article meets the GA criteria, and plan to pass it in 48 hours unless other objections are raised. But I wanted to give you another chance to take a look, since you made some comments on it previously. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Discuss everything

I agree with the principle, and that was exactly the reason for my edits. WhatamIdoing's contributions have not been discussed. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They have, and he did changed his original version to reflect the comments by others. Read the Talk more closely.Paul Gene (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read the full talk, thanks. The change does not reflect the comments, except for his own. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)



You went through SSRIs association with aggression and suicide, and I did the same just now. I'm very, very far from a specialist, could you have a go at reviewing my changes? One thing I did was replace quotes and numbers with more general statements, something covered by summary style guidelines I think. I replaced the specific percents covering aggression and suicidial ideation with a very bland 'it increases' - I couldn't find the specific figures in the FDA documents so I lacked the context to make it more specific. Since they were significant changes, they should definitely be on the page, but I'm always averse to p values and percents. Could you think of a better, but still generic way of including the information? F'rinstance, right now even though aggression rates seemed to be double suicide ideation, they're on the same playing field, but since there's no comparison to placebos that I could find, I can't do my preferred option (i.e. 2x versus placebo for suicide, 4x for aggression). I also dislike the prozac/suicide section - it's all about Germany, and it's sourced to unlinked court docs. Surely there are some pubmed documents that exist that cover this? Or even the New York Times? Court documents are probably considered primary sources or something close, and an external analysis would be nice.

Thanks for any help you can give me with this! WLU (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sertraline lead

We write for the reader, Paul—whether a layperson or a pharmacologist, and the average Joe who knows nothing about the drugs he takes has just as much right to read the very best. Fluoxetine vs sertraline may be completely uncontroversial to you or to others familiar with the topic, but it clearly isn't to all—otherwise, why mention it anyway if it's common knowledge? :) No, WP:LEAD does not mandate references to everything, but it does for statements likely to be challenged. That one was more than likely to be challenged; it was challenged, and there is absolutely no harm in including a reference (sorry if I added the wrong one, though.) As for the "lazy bum" part, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of WP:AGF now, do I? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Paul, I don't want it to seem like I'm stepping on your toes today, but... we do note this in the lead of other articles (cf. phenobarbital and metformin :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
...and I've been thinking. WP:V trumps WP:LEAD, and if some editors are unhappy with referencing in the lead... we should accommodate such requests, as long as they're reasonable (e.g. nothing along the lines of "Sertraline is an antidepressant[citation needed]". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Can you explain your reason for reverting my last edit? Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that bit is a trivia and does not add anything to the article. While one can argue that it should be mentioned somewhere, the lead is certainly not an appropriate place. I believe that putting fluoxetine into the category of WHO medications serves the purpose. Paul Gene (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, imteresting. Do we have such a category? I do think it is worth mentioning, but that's just me... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about placement. I put in the lead because one of the things a lead is supposed to do is highlight why something is regarded as notable, and the fact that the WHO regards fluoxetine as an "essential medicine" seems to me to confer a degree of notability on it. Would you be comfortable with the fact being mentioned somewhere less prominent? I'm uneasy about the idea of putting something in a non-trivial category without referencing its inclusion somewhere in the article. SP-KP (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we bring this up at WT:PHARM? Maybe we could establish a guideline of sorts about drugs in the WHO Model List (e.g. where to mention it in the article, best way to categorize etc.) I have to say I don't share Paul's view on this as trivial—sorry, Paul—but I am not comfortable changing things around without wider input. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The WHO list contains more than 500 medications and is primarily intended as a guidance/help for the authorities of developing countries. ("This WHO Essential Medicines Web Library is currently based on the 15th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. It is primarily intended for national, hospital and institutional essential medicines selection committees. Use by prescribers or consumers is not recommended.") I do not see how it is worth mentioning except for in the WHO article. Paul Gene (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

New RxCOTW candidate

Seems right up your alley—I'm sure you could do wonders on this one :) Still just a candidate, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS revert

The page starts with a list of references elsewhere, what use would such a link have on the talk page were nobody sees it and it would get archived after a while? Would you support a link in the 'see also' section or are you against it all together? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The other links there are to the (proposed) guidelines on style. Your link is to an essay (not guideline), which is not related the issues of style. To the contrary of what you think, quite a few people watch the talk page of MEDMOS. If you still think the link is worth adding, please, first discuss on the Talk page. Paul Gene (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolution and depression

Hi, I think there might've been a slight miscommunication in the MDD edit summaries (it's hard to say a whole lot in them, as their space is so limited). Anyway, my "electrodes in the brain" example wasn't spontaneous, but rather taken right out of the Carey article. Also, EverSince (who is evidently far more well-versed in the literature on this topic than I am, and to whose judgment I've been deferring a fair amount in this regard) has pointed to what seems like enough evidence to warrant the inclusion of the word "empirical," if not yet "experimental." You'll also notice that, in the talk page, I became my own critic on the inclusion of "controversial," but I still defended myself against...well, myself, and no one has (as of yet, anyway) faulted my approach to that. Also, I think the "somewhat-supported/applied-but-also-somewhat-hypothetical" wording is totally consistent with the existence of controversy, but doesn't smack of as much dismissiveness as might the simple branding of the approach as "controversial." Best, Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SSRI-related and many other article edits

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Just wanted to say thanks for all the contributions, particularly the objective vigilance on the fluoxetine and resveratrol articles! With all the people with agendas it's hard work, and your substituting out pseudo-science references for well-researched legitimate ones is much appreciated! Xris0 (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Paul. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing, particularly the section on votestacking. Colin°Talk 12:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You have quite consistently been leaving messages with authors who have questioned the consensus on WP:MEDRS. I find that a pretty strange way of trying to form consensus. JFW | T@lk 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand your problem. Friendly neutral notices to a limited amount of editors are expressly permitted: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (while keeping in mind excessive cross-posting below). For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion." That is exactly what I did. Similarly, I would love to receive the notification of the previous discussion on MEDRS, which, I believe, was not sufficiently publicized. Paul Gene (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also votestacking does not apply. "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". I sent the notice, for example to WhatamIdoing who stated that she is unsure about which point of view is better. Paul Gene (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you then deny that you were shopping for support? WhatamIdoing was a notable exception, and (to quote her words) you lost that bet.
You've got your opportunity now to provide your perspectives on WP:MEDRS. What kind of publicising did you have in mind, exactly?
I'm sure I don't need to remind you of WP:3RR. JFW | T@lk 19:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I deny that I was shopping for support, and WhatamIdoing proves that. Please also refrain from personal attacks and charged words: "shopping for support". I also do not understand why I should prove something at MEDRS when it was you who brought that debate to MEDMOS. Paul Gene (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that your choice to leave a note on my talk page only demonstrates that you misjudged whether I would support your view. Failing to notify the limited number of people whom you're certain will disagree with you, while notifying all editors that might be neutral or supportive might still qualify as inappropriate votestacking. I don't think we need to worry about it at this point -- just please be more careful about it in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It is wrong to assume bad faith and that is what you are doing. Three persons who were in support of the proposal were already participating in the discussion. I just notified some other people who I thought had interesting ideas. Paul Gene (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your most recent edit to WP:MEDMOS completely misrepresents consensus at MEDRS. How about the talkpage? Surely better than unleashing another revert war. JFW | T@lk 00:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi, Paul gene I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the apology. And here's one from me for being robustly defensive rather than trying to seek calming words and a solution where everyone is happy. I don't know why we tend to disagree so much, when (I think) both of us are on the same side. Would repeating the editorial judgement/common-sense bit from NOR be enough to satisfy your problems on MEDRS, or are there other issues too?

Colin°Talk 10:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you offer the "independence" addition for review at WT:MEDRS, as I'm not the arbiter for inclusion and there are other folk far more familiar with the journal writing/reviewing process than me.

WP:NOR actually says "one step removed from the event" rather than "one step removed from the original participants". An author writing a review a year or more after the original paper will have had time to gather feedback, reflect and possibly conduct further research that enhances or reduces the importance of that original work. The process of writing the review should cause the other to consider other research and at least try to act impartially. Surely COI bias would be a flaw anyone peer-reviewing or otherwise editorially judging the paper would check for. I accept that these guys are human and will naturally tend to side with their own arguments and their own research.

But how does one judge whether a review is independent, especially when a paper has six authors located at four different centres. If the review author is the last name on the primary source paper, are they independent enough? Who is to say that two authors located on different sides of the world aren't best drinking buddies when they meet up. Even if the review author is completely independent of the study being cited, the mere fact that they are experts in that field biases them to write a review that will encourage further funds for research, etc. Their livelihoods depend on a continued appreciation that this topic is worth further study.

For the drug review, I can appreciate that a drug company employee wouldn't tend to write a fair review but how to you find someone who would? Someone researching a rival drug or therapy might write a negative review. Even someone who apparently has nothing to gain either way may simply be biased towards a treatment they are most familiar with, or against a treatment they have had a single bad experience of.

In short, we should say something about "reviews written by authors with clear conflict of interest or based to a significant degree on their original research". I'm just not sure how strong a warning to make, given all the other sources of bias that affect any author. Colin°Talk 09:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot

The date RFC bot assigns pertains to the automatic expiration date (to prevent buildup of stale RFCs, the template gets nixed from the page after a month). I'll either clarify this on the RFC pages or bug Betacommand to change which date is displayed. --harej 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly I have no idea what would cause that. --harej 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I see no disparity between the RFCpolicy tagging and the RFCpolicy list. --harej 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Role models

Paul, even though we're on "opposing sides" of WP:PRIMARY, you seem like a nice person, and I just thought -- you might like to take a look at Ludwigs2's block log. A person that managed to get blocked three times in the same month for edit warring and disruptive editing is probably not someone whose actions you want to copy.

Note that I'm not an admin, and that I don't intend this to sound anything like a threat. A single revert against consensus is probably not going to get anyone blocked, and I do understand the temptation. But let me encourage you to discuss this, not to join Ludwigs2's misguided, multi-page edit wars.

BTW, I answered your most recent question at WT:MEDRS; let me know if it doesn't make sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am kinda not sure that you are a nice person, after all the abuse you hurled at me. And, no your answer does not make sense. My proposal to add a balancing statement was rejected by Colin on principle, not on a technicality, since it would be easy to re-write it specifically for medical articles. Paul Gene (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then let me try again:

  • The stuff that's in MEDRS now is specific to medicine, or at least to science. It would be pretty silly to have it in the main, all-of-Wikipedia policy, because it only applies to a subset of articles. Specifically, history and society (including law/politics/religion) articles use a very different standard for defining primary and secondary literature, and the academic standards in those fields dominate WP:PRIMARY. What medicine considers to be primary literature (a first-hand, unconfirmed report on an experiment published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) would in politics be considered a valuable secondary source (a first-hand, unconfirmed report on a political protest published in a properly edited newspaper). This is why this section exists at all: because there are differences between the standards for science and the standards for history/society.
  • The stuff that you want to add is already in the main, all-of-Wikipedia policy. Duplicating it does not make it twice as valid. It'd be like putting up two stop signs at an intersection. You only need the first one. By definition, a guideline cannot contradict a policy. Any apparent conflict is always and automatically resolved in favor of the policy. The specific duplication you want is therefore needless and has no actual effect on the rules (although it does introduce a maintenance hassle).

Finally, if we want to be maximally useful to an editor that doesn't know very much about the field (say, a new student that hopes to some day go to medical school, but whose current level of knowledge is two weeks of Biology 101), then we need to present the best practice, not the "use your professional judgement" rules or the "general rules that apply to most situations, but maybe not exactly to this field". Thus we emphasize the best practice for medicine-related articles, which are based on the actual standards in the actual real world. The best practice is to rely heavily on secondary sources, and in general the best secondary sources are comprehensive and systematic reviews, along with good textbooks and formally promulgated medical standards.

You, as a person with some knowledge in your particular field, can (and, I hope, will) invoke WP:IAR when it's appropriate. MEDRS does not prohibit that. The fact that "common sense and the occasional exception" apply does not make the general advice incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me answer you in your own words "stop wasting my time" and "you are beyond tiresome". Your arguments are disingenuous. You and, actually, everybody quotes policies in the relevant guidelines pages. Why am I forbidden from doing so? I cannot see good faith behind your arguments, nor you are trying to find a compromise. Paul Gene (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose a Truce

Hello Paul, I can't help but feeling a little responsible for causing the current debate(s), so have tried to follow it, but it has spread to such depth and in different locations, it has become hard to follow the thread. I can see from your devotion to debate that you believe there are some serious issues that need addressing - and after being thrown into the depths of NPOV, consensus definition, guidelines, policies being quoted like shopping lists that indeed the situation isn't clear enough. for the record - I personally believe silence is not consensus, consensus does not exclude reasoned minority opinions, guidelines do not trump policies, policies are not perfect, and a few others - so I can see some of your positioning, but I do also wonder what happens when debates can't be resolved, so let's see what happens if we do this by the book, and if we find errors / omissions in the way, get them fixed?

I'm not going to quote stuff at you which you probably know already, but from my brief meanderings I reckon this: Propose a Truce:

  1. Leave MedRS marked as a guideline for now - it has a few caveats that start to address your concerns now, hasn't it. I know this might be a sticking point for you, but it is after all only a guideline - mostly aimed at non-experts (me!) to point us in roughly the right direction - I myself wasted many hours (even days) editing time trying to put out of place refs into some order - only to find they'd been added out of context ( usually by self promoting researchers / institutions who didn't even bother to put them into a readable sentence :( ). That said it'll do for now and as I understand it experienced editors can overide it with all sorts of base policies if they have reason to.
  2. Put the past behind us - I'm not talking about forgetting the lines of reasoning, just forgetting non-constructive interchanges and starting again with well formed arguments for / against / opinions, If all parties agree we could even clear up the previous debates to leave a clearer, more polite debate. There's always article history if quotes/ references are needed in the future.
  3. All parties stand back for a little bit with minimal/succint, responses where necessary, whilst further opinions are garnered.
  4. We find consensus where everbody is happy their issues have been addressed as best we can. Then continue improving.
  1. . If 4 can't be found then we go to the next step of dispute resolution - whatever that is - but that is why I suggest alll involved club together to clean up the debate, in it's heat things sometimes got a bit ... heated.

I'd also like to keep an eye open to improving guidelines / procedures / policies that would've helped make this debate smoother in the hope of easing similar problems elsewhere on wikipedia, that's what we're here for to make it better, right?

I think this is a reasonable course of action, and would be accepted by the other editors, so the choice is up to you I guess? I'll try to help where I can to follow it through, thanks for your time, LeeVJ (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your proposal, it is very reasonable, and I actually tried to do on my own what you are proposing. That is I tried to seriously discuss an issue with Eubulides, without removing the guidelines status. I was not able to get even fourteen words inserted. And I have chosen those 14 words because they directly quote a policy, and should be uncontroversial. See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Common_sense. I am not sure whether your proposal can be made work. But thank you for your time, effort and good will. Paul Gene (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your prompt response! Am (probably) gong to planet Nod shortly, so may not reply 'til tomorrow, but if I remember your addition was a transpose of one of the policies? If so they could be included I as part of the truce with the same rationale as above for other editors, i.e. better to move forward and argue about the details more sanely. I think the important thing is give other editors a chance to catch up and comment... I believe if you propose this truce as above with this addition, it will be grasped with open arms, and we can get down to business. Forgot to mention the point mentioned by Kim about different fields having differing opinions about sources as being a possible cause of this.. very intruiging, I guess this finding consensus in policy / guidelines is actually the antithesis of the wiki policy of NOR -brilliant! LeeVJ (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. David Ruben Talk 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

<raises hand> Dispute resolution here. Present and accounted for! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Abject failure of the dispute resolution? - see
Paul, the dispute you have indicated was not the dispute that was being addressed, colin apologised, but you continue to escalate it into a discussion not relevant to the article.Stick to the arguments in hand, ignore perceived personal remarks - they may be picked up by dispute res if necessary, and give it time of which there is plenty.... LeeVJ (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Next time you start an "editor behaviour" discussion on a talk page, or start forum shopping on a policy talk page, I shall just delete your edit, per WP:TALK. And no, I don't need to discuss all my edits with you beforehand. Colin°Talk 12:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Oh forget that.

You have a right cheek to tell David off for choosing "an incorrect venue to discuss your actions", when the whole section "Administrator's poor judgement and improper actions" is utterly inappropriately located. It may be related to the guideline, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate for the matter to be discussed there. Be warned that WP:RFC says "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" and "Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste". Colin°Talk 13:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Paul Gene may have some legitimate concerns, he just needs someone to help him put them forward in a manner that is more useful and usable to the wikipedia community in this case (he seems to have done fine by himself earlier, if I briefly skim previous discussions elsewhere) . I'll see if I can find someone to help him with that. Would that be acceptable to you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Paul/Kim, you can tell from the above that I'm annoyed. In the last 24hrs I've had my edits mucked about with and twice been unjustly accused of starting this edit war[2][3]. However, I apologise to Paul if my frustration has got the better of me. Paul is a good editor who can work collaboratively, such as on Major depressive disorder. We need expert editors like Paul to help make MEDRS/MEDMOS the best guidance we can give. Colin°Talk 21:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Boring people with your arguments?

Hardly! I'm very interested in them, as they may well form the linchpin here.

In the mean time, I see you've worked on wikipedia successfully so far. Unfortunately, in this case, your approach is just slightly off (mostly by not taking enough time to try to get people to the table, I think), and it's rapidly wearing out the patience of the community. You seem to be a likable enough fellow, so I don't believe that that is your intent!

I previously talked things through with Xavexgoem, and he was going to step forward and explain things to you step by step. Unfortunately we seem to be running out of time.

Would you be willing to hold off and not edit or discuss at or about MEDRS for a little while, while we help you figure out a more viable strategy? This would immediately defuse any currently building community consensus against you, earn you some good will, and hopefully even yield a viable strategy to help you get done what you'd like to get done at WP:MEDRS.

I think that this is a win-win proposition, and I hope you'll agree to it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would love to have a compromise. A good first step would be for Davidruben to excuse himself from the dispute. I think he is a bit too involved there. His decision to promote MEDRS may or may have not been formally correct; however, it was unwise. His following decision to involve himself in the edit war may or may not be formally actionable, but it is even more unwise. He implicitly encouraged the majority to ignore other sides of the issue. An administrator, who is not involved with the side represented by Davidruben, Colin, Whatiamdoing, JFW and Sandygeorgia, should take over and encourage both sides to compromise. Paul Gene (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can do some of that. Would you care to comment on WT:MEDRS? You can find the questions at WT:CONSENSUS. (if that's confusing to you, I could probably edit things a little). If you just stick to those questions, and don't respond to others quite yet, there's little that can go wrong, I think. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Kim, thank you for interceding in this dispute. I am drafting a response. I would just like to take a little bit more time to read and understand the essential arguments of others scattered in the kilobytes of prose and provide the diffs. Paul Gene (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS, and common sense

Your latest post on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) indicates that you are perhaps taking the discussion too personally. Colin has gone on a wikibreak. Perhaps this is a good time to cease the whole discussion, and focus on something else. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

JFW, you are not an uninvolved side in this dispute. I am not taking this discussion too personally, it is Colin who has made multiple personal attacks.[4] If wikibreak will help him cool down I am all for that. Paul Gene (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You provided a diff to your own edit. If this is what Colin said, he was not making a personal attack but provided a hypothetical example. At no point was he suggesting that you were unqualified. His concern is that your personal judgement cannot replace the judgement of secondary sources, just because you think the secondary sources are fishy. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Join NoFreeLunch or some other organisation, but stop trying to force your perspectives onto other users.

I was not suggesting that I was an uninvolved party. I left my message because I think your attitude on WP:MEDRS has been the main cause for the departure (even if temporary) of a very active and conscientious editor. In that sense, my message was an accusation and I have no problem if you take it as such. JFW | T@lk 23:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)