Yes, I can help. :-) I don't think I could do it on my own though. It may be worth getting a peer review done on the article? That could focus mine and others attention onto the areas needing most work to get it up to GA.--MrADHD | T@1k?00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
In addition to the above info about not linking to disambig pages, also note that you should not create a wikilink to the very page that you are editing. So don't link "ADHD" in the article Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It simply takes the reader to the same page. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah I know, sorry about that one. Problem was I copied and pasted similar text from social skills article that I had added there and forgot to remove the self-redirect.--MrADHD | T@1k?21:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Hordaland. How goes it? Not sure about lamictal, whether drowsiness is a common side effect or not. I don't like the sweeping statement about first generation antidepressants. First generation antidepressants were MAOIs and they are quite activating/stimulating. I assume he is meaning tricyclics antidepressants, when he says first generation antidepressants, some of the tricyclics antidepressants certainly do have prominent drowsiness as a side effect. The removal of benzodiazepines and replacing it with text saying but they [tranquillisers and hypnotics] are supposed to make you sleepy, is self explainatory and a silly change and does not strike me as being very encyclopaedic. I think that antidepressants should be listed by a named type or class and not as 'first generation' etc. Does this help?--MrADHD | T@1k?01:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.
Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.
Reading your user page made me wonder about nicotine and ADD. I know that nicotine does increase focus so I decided to duck nicotine and add. My non-medical nerd opinion after a quick perusal of the results and reading some of the articles is that nicotine treatment (patches yes, cigarettes no) is in the beginnings of evaluation for ADD treatment.
I question if/when the research will progress as, in the US culture, nicotine is almost as evil a word as hemp.
While nobody wishes to spend their life on meds, it is wonderful to have them when you need them. I'm glad that the MAOIs are helping but they are not the easiest meds to manage. Perhaps nicotine would be easier.
I would never recommend intentional nicotine addiction as it is such an addictive drug. Especially for people with ADD who seem particularly skilled at addiction (kudos for kicking the habit). But you may wish to explore it under proper medical attention.
Neil Smithline (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neil. There would need to be a lot of research done on the safety of nicotine or nicotine related drugs for ADHD before they could be recommended. I think there are some concerns about nicotine's effects in the developing child and adolescent brain but then again so do a lot of other drugs.. See this reference and this reference. Apparently nicotine is as effective as methylphenidate (Ritalin) in ADHD.[1] funny you raise this now as only a few hours ago my friend was talking to me about his son who is suspected of having ADHD. I did suggest if medication was necessary he first try an experiment with coffee to see if that helped his son's behaviour given the caffeine and high levels of beta-carbolines in coffee. Might do something similar to other stimulants such as tobacco smoke or methylphenidate with less side effects. Nicotine is horrifically addictive to me, I get terrible withdrawal symptoms from it and cravings to boot. i did read a paper that nicotine withdrawal is often worse in the ADHD population, which makes sense. The MAOI that I take, moclobemide is a reversible MAOI so you don't get the dangerous tyramine food interactions like you get with the older irreversible MAOIs, as the tyramine can displace moclobemide from the Mao enzyme and be metabolised properly. Yey. :-) Thanks, kicking smoking was difficult. :) Second time giving up but intend staying off this time. Thanks for your message. :)--MrADHD | T@1k?00:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DBH (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.
Hello, Literaturegeek. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.
JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...
the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account
The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sulpiride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Binge drinking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindling (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.
I saw your name at Project Med and saw your user page. Here is some old advice - "I write of melancholy by being busy to avoid melancholy." - Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621. Re another remark on your user page, why is "impulsivity" a disorder? I thought that it being in others was the thing that kept the world from getting boring. Genius is .001 percent inspiration and .009 percent perspiration... and 99% being able to take the first step, which few tend to ever be able to do, especially when failure is far more likely than success. Diagnosing that 99% as a "disorder" called "impulsivity" may make for a dull world, in which case one might have to only the resort of writing of depression in order to avoid it. ParkSehJik (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ParkSehJik. That is a good question. I have mixed views myself on whether ADHD is a disorder. I never felt much different from my friends and I was fairly popular as a child, made friends easily etc. Although I then developed other health problems as an adolescent which is a long story. I can see benefits and negatives to having ADHD to be honest; it is what you do with 'ADHD' or don't do that is important. I think I know where you are coming from.--MrADHD | T@1k?23:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you never met a mugger, met one, refused to give up your wallet, got hit on the head and knocked unconsious, woke up in the hospital with a very bad heaadache (thereby having a concussion), then met the same mugger again and changed behavior, and gave up your wallet the second time, you would be diagnosed, not as "having learned a lesson and gotten a concussion in the process", but as having a "mental disorder", per DSM, a disorder called "Personality Change Due to a General Medical Condition". The problems with overbroadening categories of what is called "mental disease" is now so widely recognised by experts that, if not for the enormous money involved in its delays (which interferees with prescription of many new drugs), DSM V might never come out. That does not mean that many or most mental diseases are not real or in serious need of treatment, just that who decides whether and how to categorize others is not as clear as some would have others think. ParkSehJik (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to meet a high producing mathematician that, if a psychiatrist got hold of them as a kid, was not diagnosed ADHD. I don't have sources to say that, but there may be some.
I also don't have sources for this likely fact, few (if any) can resist a prescription for amphetamine salts once started, so going along with an ADHD diagnosis both pays the psychiatrist for life on a regular basis, makes money for all branches of the psychopharm industry, and is irresistable to the patient. Who is left to argue with the diagnsis of mental "illness"? Do you know any RS as to this point? ParkSehJik (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I believe ADHD often causes a weakness in mathematics and the somewhat related topic area physics (my worst subject). Usually it is high functioning autistics who excel in maths (and physics). Regarding stimulants for ADHD, there are some controversies about whether they are overused and there are concerns about their misuse and abuse. There are so many sources on ADHD, just do a search on PubMed. :)--MrADHD | T@1k?08:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
did you vote?
hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit|utter07:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the edits one by one, but some of the changes were pretty major, so that at some point, paragraph by paragraph might be a better idea. The thing is, the article was mostly unchanged in context, but it really is pretty Helter Skelter, and I wanted to add flow. So I grouped all similar idea, and once I did that, the same message was repeated 3 or more times. It was then easy to concatenate them all and keep the references. I also added flow. I placed the process of withdrawal in one section so that there would be continuity of idea in chronological order, first taper, then appearance of withdrawal symptoms, then acute withdrawal, the post acute withdrawal, then protracted, then prognosis. Then I separated the symptoms in their own category. I removed the "doctors and patients " bits mostly, but I had to keep a few, because I wanted to check the references before making any more changes, to ensure that any edits maintained the essence of the citations.
I think the article does not really follow the MEDMOS format as it is. For example under prognosis, you don't really have a prognosis. I wanted to make it follow the format but could not do it because the article was too convoluted. The plan was to start by cleaning it up a little then work in the proper format.
If you think I should do a little at time, I can do that, but I fear that the article may get worse before it gets better by doing it that way, because I might have to add redundancy before I can remove some of it later in the edit. Nevertheless, I can try if you think that is a better way.Qwertyasdf99 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Literaturegeek. 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.
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
Thanks for sucking me into that by the way, it's been doing great things for my edit count :)
I skimmed the nicotine section above, did you ever try nicotine patches? If yes, what was the effect? If you don't mind me asking. No real reason, just giving in to mankind's persistent temptation to over-value anecdotes. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex03:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Do I have good powers of persuasion? You are doing a fantastic job! Try the patches for what? Concentration? I have for concentration. It helped concentration but patches are not as good as cigarettes probably because of the lack of beta-carbolines which you get in high levels in tobacco smoke. For me nicotine is very 'addictive' as far as physically goes - really bad withdrawal symptoms, anxiety, agitation, mood swings.--MrADHD | T@1k?03:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you simply knew if you mentioned it, I wouldn't be able to resist. Less powers of persuasion than pointing me to a page and leaving me alone until I scratched.
Ya, concentration. Not that I'm suggesting you re-addict yourself, but could you use a low-dose patch (or half a patch) to titrate (yes, "titrate" Google Chrome, not "tit rate") to a dose that goosed your concentration enough to be helpful but didn't cause any adverse effects? I was listening to Dr. Radio on Sirius a while back and they were trying to convince a guy to quit nicotine patches. Not once did I hear any mention of side effects. If the patch gives you nicotine without the cancer...doesn't it just become a matter of whether you can afford it?
I'd heard one of the effects outside the CNS of nicotine was muscle relaxation, it acted on the motor units or something, did you notice that as an effect of the patch? WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex04:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried going back onto nicotine after being off cigarettes for over a year - I 'vaped' nicotine on one of those electronic cigarettes for about a week or two and then went onto a patch for 2 or 3 weeks but had to cut down to a quarter of a patch because it was causing insomnia and affecting my appetite and I liked having an extra stone of weight on me and didn't want to lose it. I guess my tolerance level to nicotine had dropped and I was sensitive to low doses. Anyway - I eventually just lost interest in playing about with nicotine and thought okay well I will just stop this quarter of a patch and couldn't believe it - I got strong withdrawal! Flu symptoms - strong 'no reason' anxiety, after only 4 weeks of use and titrating down to a quarter of a low strength patch for a couple of weeks. It seems like my body has not forgotten about nicotine agonists and if I over stimulate my nAChRs the neuroadaptations come racing back!?! I dunno why I react like that - I know ex-smokers who are able to stop with no withdrawals or who are able to continue having the 'occasional smoke' - I guess I just have to either completely stay on nicotine or completely go off it - no middle ground for me. I guess I am not cut out for physical dependence, at least not on nicotine! I am quite slim but as a smoker I lose about a stone in weight and I don't want to be 'skinny' so no more nicotine for me, I think. Nicotine is actually carcinogenic - Nicotine#Toxicology, although it certainly is safer than tobacco smoke which is much worse. Nicotine as you probably know does have health benefits such as for ADHD (although not heavily researched) and for certain immune diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease and has lots of neuroprotective properties. I think that if nicotine is being used for a therapeutic purpose or for the determined 'nicotine addict' it certainly is a better option than tobacco smoking. I think electronic cigarettes are a pretty good idea for example. This is a long detailed reply but you like info, so I am sure you don't mind. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k?21:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MrADHD-- Thanks for your initial support. I believe we are in agreement that there are serious POV problems at hebephilia caused by James Cantor and his sympathetic proxies. I see that you changed your vote based on misinformation presented by Herostratus, who has already libeled me (now oversighted) and made all sorts of outrageous personal attacks on me for years. I wanted to let you know that Herostratus is trying to manipulate you by claiming a quotation by noted legal scholar Richard Posner is something I said. Some years ago I wrote an umbrella article summarizing the phenomenon of adult sexual interest in children such as "hebephilia," because I believe our coverage could use an overview of the phenomenon with the various conceptual frameworks (medical, legal, philosophical, taxonomies, etc). The title was based on the scholarly overview Adult Sexual Interest in Children by Mark Cook and Kevin Howells, and the term appears in hundreds of books and article. It attempted to summarize all the various phenomena in one place, the way were are trying to do at hebephilia. Herostratus went utterly insane and started a campaign of harassment against me. You can read the AfD here. You can see just how abusive he got there. This recent AfD is just their latest attempt at getting me banned because I work on controversial topics and believe we should reflect the full range of expert opinion, not just the one they support. I think we are in agreement that hebephilia has serious problems because of James Cantor and friends, and I believe you will find the same problem at any other topic James Cantor has edited. He is simply here to promote himself and his friends, and to denigrate his perceived enemies like me. I wonder if you would take another look and determine what I have done wrong at hebephilia. Then compare my edits to what others have done there. Regardless of what happens, I hope you will work on hebephilia, which has devolved into a POV-fest due to five editors. Jokestress (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MrADHD, like I stated in the WP:ANI discussion, I don't believe that Herostratus was trying to misrepresent anything Jokestress stated; rather, I believe that he was demonstrating what type of text was in the article she created; he did use the words "with text like," and they are in quotation marks, after all. Reading the AfD linked above (whether you read parts of it or all of it) will definitely help you understand where people (one side, both sides, or neutral) are coming from. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking or thinking about Herostratus when I made the comment and have clarified as such in reply to you on ANI. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k?18:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied at ANI that "I was not stating that you were, MrADHD. Jokestress is the one who stated that she did not say that and that Herostratus was misrepresenting her words." Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tinkering
Hi, MrADHD. Please consider finishing your proof-reading and your thoughts in a user sandbox or text editor before posting on a busy page like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, or at least use the Preview feature. The extreme amount of tinkering you did after first saving your post bloats up the history tab and makes it harder to use. Bishonen | talk21:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hey MrADHD. I noticed that your original statement (not including responses) is 642 words long (and adding your responses it reaches around 1,100 words), but only a maximun of 500 words are permitted in a statement for a case request (including responses). Therefore, I'd like to request you to reduce your statement to meet the 500-word limit before an arbitrator or one of the clerks (including me) reduce it by ourselves (which might remove information you may consider important).
My statement now complies with ArbCom guidelines and is under 500 words. Thanks for bringing this problem to my attention. I am not counting my helpful notes to ArbCom and readers about Jokestress's absence until 5th of Feb and me shortening my statement as this is not part of my statement. Okay now? :-)--MrADHD | T@1k?23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments at the ArbCom case. I do want to take issue with your very serious claim that I advance “pro-pedophilia” viewpoints. I hope to get some guidance on this very assertion, which I feel should be cause for immediate sanctions against accusers.
There is a significant body of scholarly work that examines the intersection of sexual attraction and age of consent in the scope of different disciplines. Nearly all of that academic work has been systematically censored sitewide, even work by some of the most notable scholars in their fields. Any attempts to discuss the work of legal scholars like Richard Posner, or philosophers like Michel Foucault, get shut down immediately as not relevant to the articles. Any attempts to present a multidisciplinary overview in an umbrella article get shut down as a POV fork. It’s a Catch-22. While a medical model is one perfectly good point of view on the topic, we should include all expert academic points of view proportionally, especially those that seek to contextualize these phenomena and various conceptualizations of them within the scope of other disciplines.
As with some of the medical literature, some of these non-medical scholarly works have been embraced by advocates. I am not an age of consent advocate and have no interest in or connection to related social movements. However, I am knowledgeable about the literature on the topic. A few people who control these articles keep Wikipedia from meeting its mission of presenting the sum of human knowledge. It’s a huge problem, but I can’t take dealing with them and moved to other topics long ago.
I am glad you correctly note that the hebephilia article problem and the pedophilia article problem are different in important ways. Hebephilia is overwhelmingly rejected as a mental disorder, and pedophilia is overwhelmingly accepted as one. The changes by Cantor and friends at hebephilia were so egregious, even worse than the behavior at pedophilia, that I broke my self-imposed silence. It seems this ArbCom case is going to have to be narrowed to conduct, but I do hope the content on this cluster of articles will be examined by people like you who don’t seem to have the kind of WP:OWN behavior we see in Flyer22 et al. Jokestress (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for both your original and altered comment about Jokestress's problematic conduct, MrADHD, and for disregarding her assertion that I and others are WP:OWNING the Pedophilia article (one of the articles she still has not moved on from) simply because we combat pro-pedophilia and/or WP:FRINGE ideas about "adult-child sexual relationships," and/or WP:UNDUE matters, when it comes to that article. You clearly read my statement on the request page about her non-medicalization POV. Thank you. Your opinion on these matters adds an outside view, even though you have been involved in the hepehilia dispute (a dispute in which Jokestress continues to categorize me as being a James Cantor servant, despite my having stated things like, "Going ahead removing the paraphilia categories, per the American Psychiatric Association's rejection. Not only is it not considered a mental disorder by most psychologists, but not a paraphilia by most of them either."). Having people who are otherwise largely or are completely unrelated to these disputes comment is a good thing. Often, when outsiders see the problems, it shows that the problems aren't simply manufactured due to personal dislike. You should stand by the comment you left there about her and don't be intimidated by her comment that she is hoping "to get some guidance on [the feelings some have that she advances pro-pedophilia and pro-"adult-child sex" views], which [she feels] should be cause for immediate sanctions against accusers." You have not called her a pedophile or child sexual abuser on the evidence page, and were careful to state that you "do not believe she meant to advance pro-paedophilia viewpoints." So your statement on that, which you provided evidence for, is not a WP:BLP violation; it's fine. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Jokestress, I don't know Richard Posner or Michel Foucault but if they were defending DSM IV paedophilia as acceptable or normal then they would be advancing very WP:FRINGE theories which do not need to be included in a general overview article such as our paedophilia article. Their views on paedophilia may be worth mentioning on their biography pages as a fringe viewpoint they held or hold, so it is possible that I am jumping to conclusions. If you like you can give me links to their views for me to read. Although I do not know their specific comments that they made on paedophilia to which you refer. Yes, I am quite concerned about James Cantor's conduct and editing of the hebephilia article. Flyer22, yup I did read your statement. Thank you for your thoughts and feedback. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k?15:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are focusing on the wrong part of the problem. Posner, Foucault, and many others have studied the LEGAL and HISTORICAL aspects of sexual morality, specifically laws which were not codified until the 1800s and then became more and more repressive throughout Western civilization. Foucault came to this topic because of his critique of the relationship between the institutions of "mental hygiene" (psychology and psychiatry) and the law. He believed that the unchallenged construction by mental health experts of a "criminal mind" creates a dangerous situation in which the law begins to make judgements not based on actions but on individuals because of how they are categorized. This is exactly what was attempted with "hebephilia." Proponents tried to create a new class of disorder which was being used to hold people indefinitely on civil commitments. Making these articles strictly about an operationalized description and a medical phenomenon ignores the real-world ramifications of these conceptualizations. Foucault died before DSM-IV and this hebephilia nonsense started, but this is a good secondary source summary of his work. This is a relevant passage from Posner. These texts attempt to place the construction of disease models within historical and legal contexts in order to understand how they emerged. In other words, our articles are only about "this guy coined this in this year" and "this group codified it as this in this year." There is an entire body of work missing from these articles. It's equivalent to summarizing "expert" scholarship on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or which skull bumps indicate a "criminal mind" without stepping back to examine the larger issues raised by this kind of reification. It's a problem across the project and is a reflection of the systemic bias of the average Wikipedian, who has a very positivist worldview. It's at its very worst on sexuality topics, though. Forensic psychologist and lawyer Charles Patrick Ewingas an excellent overview from his two areas of expertise.Cantor removed his rival Ewing here. and started trashing Ewing on the talk page. Let me know if you have additional questions or would like more sources. Jokestress (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your message on COI
Hi Mr. ADHD,
I don't know if this is the correct method of responding to your note, but it is the only one I could figure out.
We clearly have different viewpoints on the utility of antibiotics and possibly on those for other drugs too. But I do not believe that any of the Wikipedia guidelines on COI are apply to me. I am not paid for my contributions, do not work for any company that manufacturers, sells or develops pharmaceutical products, and am not involved in any litigation.
I have made some fairly extensive changes to several articles, and am aware that earlier contributors may disagree with or even be angered by these changes. But I've tried to be balanced. Unlike many others, I don't go through and just change things without leaving a comment so that others can look at the history, see what I've done, and what my justification was. I think carefully and try to make the article represent a neutral, or at least mainstream POV, and not just my own.
Recognizing that some will disagree with my edits, I think the overall community response has been positive. When I began editing the Ciprofloxacin article in Jan 2012, it had multiple flags for Original Research, statements not supported by citations, and Non-Neutral POV. These have been removed. (I don't know exactly how that happens.) In January 2012, prior to my edites, the article's reader ratings for Objectivity and Trustworthiness were each about 2.5 to 3 on a 1 to 5 scale. These ratings are now 4.8 and 4.1.
I'm trying to do the right thing, just as I'm sure you are.
Either here or on your talk page is fine. :) What viewpoints do you think that I have for the utilisation of antibiotics? I just finished a course of co-amoxiclav a month ago and the month before that I took a course of doxycycline both of which were for suspected SIBO. :) Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns Alfred. I accept that you do not have a COI and I apologise if you felt offended by my enquiring. I did acknowledge on your talk pages that some of the edits that I looked at seemed productive to me but some of the edits I felt were perhaps biased - I am happy to be wrong about the COI thing. Undoubtedly the antibiotic articles need work done to them and you seem to have done good work on the ciprofloxacin article. Again it was only some of your edits, a few really that I was a bit concerned about - no one here edits perfectly here, myself included. Thank you for your good work Alfred. :)--MrADHD | T@1k?18:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful response and openness to different points of view. I try to do my best, but I'm sure I end up inserting my opinion into my edits to some extent just like everyone else. Feel free to edit my comments when you think I've done so. That seems to be pretty much the way Wikipedia works, and I'm sometimes surprised to the extent that others have left my edits unchanged given the diversity of viewpoints here. Alfred Bertheim (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition,[2] to the long-term effects of alcohol article has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You have previously been warned about doing this. Please stop! Summarise content of sources in YOUR OWN words! Don't copy and paste please! It breaks copyright laws and rules!MrADHD | T@1k?20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why cannot the section include: Interestingly, ethanol has been found to double the lifespans of worms feed 0.005% ethanol but does not markedly increase at higher concentrations. Supplementing starved cultures with n-propanol and n-butanol also extended lifespan.;[1] This seems to be statistically significant for humans when compared to the previous study discusses; Human macronutrients in food consist mainly of water and the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) for water is 3.7 litres (3700 mL x 0.005% EtOH = 18.5 mL EtOH) for 19-70 year old males, and 2.7 litres (2700 mL x 0.005% EtOH = 13.5 mL) for 19-70 year old women.
Okay the source that you quote from is a primary source on animals/worms. This would be considered a very poor source especially for a huge subject matter such as alcohol which has enormous amounts of high quality research to choose from. Animal/worm studies really are very preliminary in nature and are not relevant to encyclopedia usually and are just done to discover facts which may or may not prove to have relevance to humans. You should aim to use recent secondary sources such as review papers. When search PubMed there is an option on the left hand side to restrict searches to secondary sources (reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis's) as well as choose a date, e.g. 5 or 10 years so that you get journal searches of recent secondary sources to choose from. If you keep adding in poor quality sources, you will find that it will often get reverted/removed. Even if a sources allows you to copy and paste it with attribution it is still not how to build an encyclopedia - we want content written in editor's own words. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for copy and pasted text. To add a time stamp click your curser/mouse at the end of your message and then above the editing box click on the icon that has a pen drawing a sqiggle. There is also a key on your keyboard which you can press 4 times to get the 4 thides (sp?) which the wikipedia server translates into a signiture. I hope that this helps. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k?15:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fibromyalgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism (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.
Noticed that you responded to my request for a reference for the "dramatic underdosing" of patients in the control arm of the PFE trial. I have been unable to find the provided citation online. Can you tell me how you accessed it? As no US court has ever ruled on the facts of this case, I suspect you are citing the plantiff's allegations, which would not meet Wiki standards for a reliable source. Thanks. Alfred Bertheim (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A source does not have to be available online to be used in wikipedia per WP:SOURCEACCESS. I am unaware of a policy that says that a court has to rule on something before it can be considered a reliable source.--MrADHD | T@1k?01:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes
I saw what you said at the Workshop page, and I just wanted to stop by and wish you well, since it certainly sounds like you've been having a tough time. As for your question there, I saw a comment on another talk page by the drafting Arb that he was planning to write up the proposed decision over this weekend, presumably to post it Monday, so it is probably getting too late to have an impact, but you can still react to the Proposed Decision on the Proposed Decision talk page, once it's posted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment at the Sexology arbitration proposed decision talk page
Earlier today you left a comment in reply to Jokestress regarding your evidence in the sexology case [3]. Part of your comment was intended to contain a link to part of your evidence, but you appear to have pasted the link to edit the talk page section where you left your comment rather than a diff/link to the evidence page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience I would say very much so yes although it would be different strokes for different folks. The review seems to support the view that nicotine benefits ADHD symptoms an they state that nicotine acting drugs are in development. Are you thinking about adding that review to the ADHD article? In my opinion there should be some more discussion on medications for ADHD such as a brief mention of certain antidepressants.--MrADHD | T@1k?21:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing review finished, some items for you to address, and then we'll move on to prose. Looking good so far! Zad6802:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MrADHD, I see you're addressing some of the sourcing issues. I'm expecting that you're going to keep working on them until you hand it back over to me, with a note on my User Talk or at the GA1 page. Let me know when you're ready to continue. Zad6814:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zad, yes still working away on the article. What is the time limit? I don't have a huge amount of free time but will keep plugging away in my spare time (weekends).--MrADHD | T@1k?11:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!
If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
I have answered at articles talk so as not to clutter the GA. However, as I have concluded there the more I look into the source the more I dislike it for the ADHD article. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's it going, what's the status? When can we pick it up again? I'd really like to close out the GA in the next few weeks. Zad6802:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry was away a lot on holiday and doing important bits and pieces. :-) I just did some more work. I am all done (unless you have any other issues that you find that require fixing). What do you think? Anything holding it back? I will try and log on every day just to check if anything needs fixing.--MrADHD | T@1k?20:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! I just hadn't seen any updates in recent days and was wondering where we were. We do need to drive the GA review to a conclusion soon. I'll check out the updates you guys made. Zad6801:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK the last few sourcing issues and the prose review are now done, turning it back over to you to address. I am looking for us to wrap this up over the next few days. Thanks... Zad6818:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My puzzling comment
Hey MrADHD, I'm finishing up the review of the sourcing changes (working offline, will post notes soon, looks great so far). In the GA review, for one source I wrote "I bet the sentences this source is used to support are the reasons why you wrote this article." It was based on the comments you have made on your User page regarding your own medical challenges, but today I took a look at the related content sentences and it occurred to me that what I intended to be friendly interest in your work could have come across negatively. If it did, sorry about that, no offense was intended. Zad6801:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - have seen your updated review and will start to try and address the issues. Hah, no not at all - I did not take your comment negatively at all. My response is that I bet if I told you a quarter of my life story you would think that I was making it up. I have of course had life experiences which have given me knowledge and interests etc. :-) I write articles/content in the hope that they are enjoyable, informative, balanced/accurate and otherwise of benefit to our readers. I do not contribute to articles for my benefit and not even so much for the community's benefit but for our readers. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k?01:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, glad to hear. And thanks for your work on the article, it's a very interesting and globally relevant topic! Zad6818:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it!
On a personal note, I wanted to add that I'm always happy to meet a fellow disabled editor, especially one accomplishing so much. Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, kind sir! :-) I never had major problems directly due to ADHD, and wouldn't consider myself ADHD as disability, although I do have other health problems which definitely do disable me in certain ways. Nice meeting you to. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k?22:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just meant the disability you referred to on your user page. I'm always interested in how many self-identified disabled people are on Wikipedia. You have to assume there are even more of us than mention it--it's a good outlet when you're restricted in other areas. ::Anyway, congrats again and happy editing... -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Hi there. I noticed that you made some edits to dexmethylphenidate in the past that cast the drug in a negative light and didn't conform to the WP:POV policy. This included WP:Weasel wording involving side effects and the copying of a specific and out-of-place passage that cast dexmethylphenidate in a negative light into the article's introduction. I appreciate you citing your statements and contributing to these languishing pages, but please try to be more neutral in the future. Thanks. Exercisephys (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are secondary sources that have been recently published. What is the issue with it? The lead is supposed to contain a summary of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jmh649, my point is that that text was copied and pasted verbatim from a lower section of the article. There is no point in doing that, and discussing growth stunting too specific for an intro. Exercisephys (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD we are meant to summarise the most important text from the sections in the article body. Therefore I mentioned the most important side effects of the medication using neutral language and high quality sources. Perhaps I could have made the text more brief but I certainly disagree that the text and how I worded it violated WP:NPOV.--MrADHD | T@1k?21:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User page
Hi MrADHD,
I appreciate you discussing your positive thoughts about ADHD. Many of them can be true like adventurous and spontaneous. I was diagnosed with combined ADHD so I can see what might be "good". One positive thought however, contradicts the ADHD page on social skills. Yes, it is true that a few people with ADHD may have many friends but most of them however have social skill impairments. Your username stands out and people may click on it to see your profile. There is evidence from realiable sources that indicate this. You may want to change the wording of your talk page to not contradict the ADHD page to prevent readers from being confused.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irritable bowel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distension (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.
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a question though. Who is the IP user who deletes so many side effect references? By way of background I had originally added the info about benzo interactions since the increase in withdrawal symptoms including seizures is a common problem for people who have to care for geriatric benzo addicts and the mechanism of action is that fascinating GABAA receptor. But it appears to me that I popped up on an article where there is an active edit war with between an eclectic gaggle of (in the broader sense) inclusionists and one anonymous (in the broader sense) deletionist who is both rigid and defensive to the point where I'm beginning to wonder about motivation. Since I have vowed to myself to try to be less of a dick I'm withdrawing from involvement in such articles for the time being. What concerns me is that the deletionist is an evanescent IP user of multiple IP accounts in a manner reminiscent of a sock puppet attack. Since you seem to be in the middle, having done both style edits, is that your impression as well, or is it something else that I'm missing? Trilobitealive (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure who the ip editor is. Those articles have a history of being POV edited by drug companies and patients who allege that they were harmed by the drugs. What is needed is balance between the two POVs per guidelines such as NPOV and WEIGHT.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?21:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Literaturegeek. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diabetic foot ulcer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synovial. 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.
Thanks for bringing that consensus discussion to my attention, I didn't know about it. The consensus seemed to encourage replacing rather than outright deleting non-controversial Daily Mail sourced content. The consensus said "generally prohibited." Thanks, I am ok and hope you are to. :_)--Literaturegeek | T@1k?20:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Literaturegeek. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
_(14586469407).jpg)
