User talk:Testem

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


Hi, I am obviously a new wiki user, but not new to ketamine infusions as a treatment modality. I started one of the first clinics in the country after researching the treatment for over a year. We are one of dozens of independent clinics who have successfully treated thousands of patients. Our average remission time after stabilization is 2 months between treatments. I have already made several fortunes in my life, and I could care less whether this effort results in any reward other than seeing that my adult children do not suffer from the illnesses they were unlucky enough to inherit from me. This is about them and the 120 or more people who commit suicide every day in this country. Every one of those deaths is now preventable.

There is a large gap right now between what is known in practice at commercial clinics and what is published - the reason for that gap is that there is no profit in ketamine research since the patent is long expired, so there is no real ketamine research. All, and I do mean all, of the research on ketamine is investigational only for the sole purpose of developing a patented alternative. The tragedy is that the industry has been trying to develop an analog drug for 50 years without success.

I understand and support the general reasoning behind needing second-party sources for medical information. My question is at what point does the weight of anecdotal and single-sourced data outweigh the lack of formal second-party research? Frankly, if I don't pay for it personally, there is not going to be any research anytime soon. I have done that with regard to medical marijuana, but there is only so much one person can do, and a lot of time involved in that approach.

So, do you have any suggestions for a middle ground - for instance, using press reports as sources? Also, I personally have been designing experiments for 40 years as a research scientist and entrepreneur. I am pretty good at it. We have bullet proof data regarding the efficacy of ketamine. Would sharing the data be a violation of wiki rules?


Gerald Gaines Geraldwgaines (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi there :) First thing to note is that on talk pages new sections always go at the bottom. I understand your situation, it is one I face often on wikipedia and it can be frustrating. I am a keen editor of articles on novel psychoactive substances and there is a huge lack of published knowledge about these. The result is that I cannot use wikipedia as a repository for cutting edge information. It is annoying, but to guarantee quality it is somewhat understandable. You will be in the same situation, but press releases are acceptable and it sounds like some of your other claims might be verifiable too. Anecdotal data from a trusted source, while not really data, may be acceptable in some cases.

Don't be put off, wikipedia really needs quality editors and although I have had to revert some of your edits, I appreciate all the effort and some of the edits are very valuable too. Testem (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about stepping on your digital front lawn, but if I actually knew where my section was going or how to move it (which I am sure is explained in some nice FAQ somewhere), then I would never have transgressed. Will come back better prepared :/ While I'm moonwalking away... this is the kind of information I think is critical to have out there - I would hate to count the number of doctors who are starting offering Ketamine treatment and their major source of information is one published study and Wiki - but I bet you the number is in the hundreds now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldwgaines (talkcontribs) 16:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Geraldwgaines: Your userpage is here: Do you have a non-publicly available site, a website ideally? Testem (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Working on a new site that will include a private portal for professionals, target mid september. Until then, stuck with linked in and Don't bother telling me site sucks, its a market test decoy. This is not my first rodeo. My first job out of undergrad in 1978 was running a test market in Phoenix - perfect sandbox. GG Geraldwgaines (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I see you are interested in drawing structure - could I please ask you to have a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Structure drawing, some important items to note are that we would prefer if you could only upload to commons, it's taken us 12 months to clear out several thousand structures from en-Wiki - they can be better categorised at commons, but sadly no easy search. Also if possible could you use png or (even better) svg format. We won't be moving the jpg and gif to commons, they are all being re-drawn by volunteers in svg format first. Ways of getting svgs files are in the page I quoted. Thanks for your attention, and your contribution to Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. License for structures is always {{PD-chem}} as there is no originality.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MXE article[edit]

I think the MXE article deserves a QSAR pharmacology section explaining how it's inception was based on known molecules. I think simply deleting what I did was not constructive. If you feel you would be able to improve on what I have done then that is fair enough but simply deleting what I did I find not helpful. If you read the VICE article where the man who lost a hand who is said to have invented MXE actually believes that the compound is opioidergic. I feel it was necessary to draw on the example of 3-OH-pcp. I gave a reference that stated that 3-OH-pcp is an opioid antagonist. Therefore I did give a reference to 3-OH-pcp which is relevent to the discssion of what the pharmacology of MXE might be expected to be like.--Aschwole (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, and the edit has a lot of potential, but the tenses were still off and the information needed citations. If you want to put it into the talk there and give it some sources I'll be happy to help format and fix the syntax but as it is, it isn't quite ready to be added to the main article. Testem (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion should probably take place at Talk:Methoxetamine, so others can weigh in. Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting drugs: MPEP link[edit]

Just a heads up: The link for MPEP on your user page redirects to Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, not 2-Methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine. Pmillerrhodes TalkContrib 17:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks Testem (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nitrogen narcosis[edit]

You placed a {{citation needed}} tag in the lead (opening paragraphs) of Nitrogen narcosis. You may not be aware, but the lead of a developed article summarises the body of text that follows it, and it is not normally a requirement to source summary statements in the lead when they are already directly sourced in the main text. You will find that most Featured Articles have no citations in the lead for this reason.

In this case, the statement "Although divers can learn to cope with some of these effects, it is not possible to develop a tolerance" is a direct summary of the last sentence of the third paragraph in the Prevention section: "Scientific evidence does not show that a diver can train to overcome any measure of narcosis at a given depth or become tolerant of it." which is clearly sourced to:

  • Hamilton, K; Laliberté, MF; Heslegrave, R (1992). "Subjective and behavioral effects associated with repeated exposure to narcosis". Aviation, space, and environmental medicine. 63 (10): 865–9. PMID 1417647. 

If you insist on challenging the sentence in the lead, I will repeat the citation, although I do not feel this is necessary and is bound to be reversed when the article goes to Featured article candidature. I would much prefer it if you were to revert your tagging, but that's up to you. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that and am grateful to you for pointing this out to me. I'll revert the tag. Testem (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'm always happy to share whatever I've learned here, so please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you think there's anything I can help you with. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid[edit]

Hi Testem, I changed your inline notes to gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, as {{Unreliable sources}} displays as

If you want the inline text version, please use {{Verify credibility}}, which displays as

[unreliable source?]

If I made a mistake, or you have any questions, please ask me at my talk page. Regards, HMman (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC).

Ah, thank you very much Testem (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks so much for creating and developing testing reagent pages. That's the kind of topic that's really important and often overlooked. Wikipedia is usually the first place people come for information on things like that! Exercisephys (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Re. red text in signature[edit]

Thanks for feedback, I had not thought of this before, although red usernames are not unheard of, e.g. UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄. Lesion (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Desiccator may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:Desiccator.jpg|thumb|right|A '''vacuum desiccator''' (left - note the stopcock which allows a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oxygen scavenger[edit]

Hi. I've sorted out your speedy request. It was coming up at CSD, but there was no template visible on the page. I've moved your request to above the redirect instruction, and it displays now. Looks like things below the redir are ignored for display, but things above take precedence and cancel out the redir. Something new I've learned there... Peridon (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Superb, thanks. I didn't know that either. Testem (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

About your edits of the "Sour gas" article[edit]

Testem, I am questioning why you felt that the "Sour gas" article needed the section you added on "Solution based acid gas removal". The previous paragraph to your section has a link to the "Amine gas treating" article which essentially covers the same material as you added into to the "Sour gas" article. If you believe that the "Amine gas treating" article needs improving, then feel free to improve it ... but why add a new section to the "Sour gas" article covering the same ground? ... Regards, mbeychok (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I just wasn't thinking. I'll revert it. Just because it had info about methods for treating but didn't include amine techniques. Selexol is also not an amine.Testem (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Testem. ... Regards, mbeychok (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

unsourced content[edit]

hi, as per this dif, actually deleting unsourced content is just fine as per WP:V. it is a style thing. I also note that as per WP:PROVEIT, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." (emphasis added) I have zero desire to edit war over this. To avoid trouble over this chunk of content, since we are both watching the ketamine article, would you please let me know how long, in your mind, content has to be tagged before it can be deleted? thx! Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I replaced it because the information seemed sensible and quite possibly legitimate, but was an edit from a new user. I would like to see it remain indefinitely but if not then perhaps ask the original editor to find a citation of some sort. If not then a month seems sensible? Testem (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
a month will do, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My Comma[edit]

My comma is necessary. Can you explain yourself? Marc Bago (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Marc Bago: I just think it sounded better without it. I would certainly not pause after saying 2000 in that sentence. Testem (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for the kind words sent to my IP address! As per your suggestion, I signed up as a member and hope to help the community as much as yourself :) Ihatemeatman (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic routes[edit]

Thanks for your interest and help. U-47700 is the first page I built and I'm a bit lost moving it into the main Wiki page. I think it's useful for 3DQSAR studies. If you look at the talk page on Viminol, I point out several patents. A QSAR of that class would be great. Amazing that they found an analogue x312 morphine but in real life, often potency of these super-potent compounds is vastly less. Look at etonitazene. Most people STILL seem to think it's x1500 morphine. In Russian studies, it turns out it's 60x morphine. Still very potent & dangerous but not the crazy figures people cite.

Best wishes, Delia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talkcontribs) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dvwynn: Sorry, I'm not quite following you. What page are you trying to move where? In any case, thanks for you contributions :) Testem (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your question about my 3d models[edit]

1) Wikipedia is driven by user input. Each of the substances I've modeled so far were lacking 3d models, but other similar substances have them. So you could say, if nothing else, I'm trying to add consistency by creating 3d models of these substances where there are none.

2) Background color is subjective. I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule or regulation requiring submitted images in the commons to have a certain background color. Please reference any rules/regulations that would apply.

Thanks for your OPINION on my postings. If you wish to hold my input up to your own personal standards that's cool.. just keep it to yourself or off my page because I don't care. I'm only interested in complying with published regulations. If you can provide easily followed, direct links to any Wikipedia regulations i'm in violation of please feel free to post them either here or on my page.

lazord00d (talk)

Hi @Lazord00d:, thanks for replying so promptly. Sorry as I didn't mean to upset you, I just wanted to discuss the idea. I think you're right about there not being any regulations (though I haven't looked) but I just thought that background might be something you overlooked. No worries if you don't want to change it - I am all for consistency. :) Testem (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Testem: Not overlooked as much as that I don't consider it to be a problem, the black background is default in jmol which is what was used to render the images. I've run into the phenomenon of a user "owning" a topic here, and taking everyone to task that posts besides them or everyone that posts outside of their opinion of how the article(s) should appear or contain. Not really into that so I'm pretty clear on my position any time I suspect it may be happening... which would be the vast majority of the time I see corrections based on opinion. lazord00d (talk)

@Lazord00d: Yes I know what you mean, and it is somewhat understandable when they may have spent a lot of time working on something. I am a firm believer in working together hence why I posted to your talk page to discuss it :) It takes a lot of give and take to contribute here and to be honest I was a bit upset by your response. Testem (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Testem: I have nothing but love for all contributors here, and unless I'm way off in my understanding of this site it is open for public editing to anyone, regardless of how much work and effort they may have put in already. There may be some sort of unspoken hierarchy but if so it's not official and I've already gone over my affinity for official rules and regs vs. the alternatives. I'm sure a lot of contributors do feel that their level of contribution entitles them to oversee topics, but unless that entitlement is given by Wikipedia explicitly and officially, it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. I took the tone I did because you questioned otherwise valid input based on your opinion of how it should be as opposed to questions of fact or validity, which are what we should focus on.

Elsevier access[edit]

Hello, Testem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

6-APB 3d model[edit]

The rotating 3d model used here specifically leaves artifacts as it rotates, at least in firefox. I've tested across several systems. Also, the models I've created blend the features of a space-filling model and the 2d formulaic model which I've found is helpful when translating the 2d model into actual molecular structure. Fully space-filling models naturally cover up some of the bonds and their types, and the 2d models aren't always clear unless one has Chemistry training. That was the reasoning behind my choice to change models here. I definitely disagree with the idea that a blended type of 3d model simply duplicates the function of the 2d formulaic models, for the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazord00d (talkcontribs) 01:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Err I already tried discussing.. that's not what you're after or you'd have replied. Lazord00d (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lazord00d:I've not had time to properly reply and you have already re-reverted the edit within a day? I question your claim that you "don't want an edit war". When I have a moment we will be able to discuss this properly. Testem (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not working on anyone's time schedule but my own. My reasons for any changes I've made are legit to the best of my knowledge and have been stated clearly. I'm not here to show off or outdo other people's efforts. My focus is entirely on working to make wikipedia as useful as possible for the broadest range of minds possible. The blended type of 3d model translates directly from the formulaic model with minimal differences, except that they show atoms that are omitted in the 2d models, therefore they help the broadest range of minds grasp the concept. It's as simple as that.


Lazord00d (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for organising this. Testem (talk)


Listed in table 1 Acquired causes of rhabdomyolysis Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: Apologies, ctrl+f did not locate the phrase "LSD" in that for me.

A page you started (Zimmerman reagent) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Zimmerman reagent, Testem!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a few more references. Hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

cite doi should not be used[edit]

{{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} should not be used anymore AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: Didn't know that, thanks Testem (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks so much for your work on test kit articles! That's super useful stuff, and I'm really happy to see that there's someone personally committed to making the whole category strong. Exercisephys (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Exercisephys: Thank you! There is a lot of information available online and people come to wikipedia when they want information, so I've been making an effort to make sure it's easy to find when they do, rather than needing to search multiple sources. Testem (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Testem. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't know that, thanks. Testem (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MDA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)