User talk:Fvasconcellos/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user is an administrator.This user is an administrator.
This user is an administrator.
Keepin' it real since 1554Keepin' it real since 1554
Keepin' it real since 1554

2009 time!

To a good 2008 and to an even better 2009. Happy New Year!Acalamari 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)







Stewie Griffin is my name, World domination is my game

Please change the block settings for that user to "account creation blocked, cannot edit own talkpage". I am suggesting that you do that due to this. --IRP ☎ 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you for the note. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome -- IRP ☎ 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for December 2008

The Alternative music WikiProjectNewsletter
Issue 21 - December 2008
"Anthony's a sex symbol. You see the thing is for the girls they're like 'oh Anthony he's so beautiful! And his muscles and his hair and oh golly he's so sexy!' but with me its like [with men] 'DUDE YOU'RE SO AWESOME...WOW DUDE. WOW!" - Flea
Project news
New members

Papa November and S. Dean Jameson joined the alternative music fold during December.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot II (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

NK1 receptor antagonist

Since you are an admin, can you move Discovery_and_development_of_neurokinin_1_receptor_antagonists to NK1 receptor antagonist? The latter is a two-sentence stub, which I've already merged into the real article, which has really long name that's not typical of Wikipedia articles. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done. The right thing to do here, actually, was a Full-content paste merger into NK1 receptor antagonist and simply redirect Discovery and development of neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Fvasconcellos. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pharmacology interview

Greetings, Fvasconcellos! I've been conducting WikiProject Report interviews for the Signpost recently. I've decided that I'd like to do the next one on Wikiproject Pharmacology. The project page doesn't specify any lead coordinator or project manager or anything like that, but after some snooping, I originally decided to ask Derek.cashman, but he seems to be somewhat inactive at the moment, having not edited since December 17. Would you like to do the interview in his stead?

If you're interested, leave me a note here or on my talk page, and I'll walk you through the rest of the process. If you're not interested, would you mind pointing me in the direction of another project member whom you believe to be qualified?--Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Here is where I'll be posting the questions. I highly recommend that you add it to your watchlist, as I'll probably only notify you when I'm all finished. I usually post a few questions at a time based on your answers to the previous questions. Don't worry about formatting, I can fix it all up when the story is ready to be published. The Signpost story deadline is this coming saturday at 20:00 UTC, but if we end up needing more time than that, so be it. The story can wait until the next issue. I'll probably post the first set of questions some time tomorrow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Coenred's tree

If you would create an SVG version that would be terrific. I hadn't realized quite how poorly GIFs resize; I'll try to avoid creating GIF versions of these things in future.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, looks like Jappalang went ahead and did it -- he just replaced the gif with an svg. Thanks anyway for the offer -- much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, all right then. I apologize for not getting to this sooner, and I hope you're pleased with the result!Fvasconcellos (t·c)22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there!!

... and Happy New Year to you :) Hope all is well ....

Just passing on the note that someone - *coff* - made a dreadful hack of this structural diagram ofDeslorelin. It likely needs expert attention (hint, hint ;) ). Don't worry, though - I've seen that the culprit has been punished for this heinous abuse of Inkscape ;) - Alison ❤ 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, hello yourself—fancy seeing you here, ma'am :) I'll, erm, remedy the situation.Fvasconcellos (t·c)13:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Give them a good, stern talking-to, I say ;) BTW - it's nice to be just talking pharma articles with you again, and not admin stuff - it's been so long since we did that - Alison ❤ 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it has! Too many tools sort of spoils the fun, doesn't it? :( Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering whether you'd like a cleaned-up version of this exact orientation or something more along the lines of the other structures in GnRH agonist? Don't know how long you'll be around, so... just wondering :)Fvasconcellos (t·c)23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oooh - thank you! :) I think that structure looks just perfect, actually. It's a million times better than the abomination that I'd cobbled together. Thanks!(not sure how much I'll be around, but I'm largely off admin duties, to preserve my sanity :) ) - Alison❤ 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Tell me about it. I can feel mine slipping through my fingers... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Quick suggestion

You know what, I've never seen that before and it's ruddy useful. Cheers! Any other ideas that aren't on WP:ADMINGUIDE?—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More stuff I haven't heard of befoe :) Thanks, I'll get on it! Hopefully it shouldn't be too long before my RfA, perhaps March.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 10:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Block

FYI, I got to that IP spamming that case history a few minutes after you and blocked them for a year before I noticed that you'd already dealt with it. Do you think I should reduce the length? I chose a long block since they seemed to have a strong agenda with few other useful contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to come across your ANI thread regarding the vandal on Tiscali (88.108.x.x). While suggesting that contacting the ISP was a good idea, I think you'll find Tiscali are useless at handling abuse reports - myself and another editor have been trying to get Tiscali to block a long-time vandal (WJH1992) but have hit nothing but brick walls... ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm afraid it's the best we can do here—as noted on AN/I, a rangeblock would hit far too many "innocent bystanders". Damage control it is, I guess. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
True. I hope they get it sorted out though :). ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 13:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Quinolones

OK, so my general comments on this: it's detailed, and the writing is good on a micro level. The problem is the overall effect. It's really detail-dense - it's great to provide so many exact dates and sources, but the overall effect is to dilute the essential elements of the section in a sea of detail. Reading through it, I get the sense that a lot of lawsuits and letters were issued, but it's harder to take away the big picture. I wonder if it would be possible to strip down the section a bit - this level of detail runs the risk of being recentist, US-centric, and all those other mortal sins. Can we strip it down to indicate the basics, which I take to be:

  • Tendon rupture was described way back when, but quinolones were initially labeled as only causing tendon problems in kids
  • A safety signal was appreciated, but the FDA dragged their feet after promising to look into it
  • After 10 years of on-and-off pressure from Public Citizen, ultimately aided by the Illinois AG, the FDA required a boxed warning

I don't think we need to get into the technical details of how a decision was communicated - whether by "Dear Doctor" letter, registration-only website, etc. I can take a shot at making such changes if you like, and you can just revert them if you don't like them. MastCell Talk 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I finally received my Dear Doctor Healthcare Provider letter from Merck yesterday, about Noroxin. :)MastCell Talk 17:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In the mail? As an actual letter, in an envelope and stuff? That's so 20th century. Email alerts, my friend—therein lies the future. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, the envelope was sealed with a glob of wax imprinted with Merck's signet. That's how I knew it was authentic. My approach to technological innovation is inspired by that of Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens. MastCell Talk 22:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Structures in Cyathus

Thanks kindly for adding chemical structures to the Cyathus article! I'm hoping to promote it to GA sometime soon, and that will really help. Cheers Sasata (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've added one to episterol as well. Good luck with GAN, and feel free to drop me a line if you need a hand. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

Fv, I'm not sure if you use the automated tools, but perhaps you can help. I don't know anything about the automated tools, but a very troubing situation developed last night. Do you have any ideas about what might have happened here: User talk:Slp1#Ayn Rand? Slp1, truly a stellar editor, has left the building over this; it would be nice to at least let her know how it might have happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The most likely hypotheses I can think of are 1) Slp1 had her Watchlist open, tried to revert vandalism to another article, and clicked the entry above or below it instead; 2) she saw the edit, mistakenly thought it was unconstructive, and clicked the rollback button. I use Twinkle extensively and have warned a fair share of editors for its misuse, and (as someone completely uninvolved) her edit did seem very, very problematic. If I'd known Slp1's background I would have been puzzled, if not I probably would have issued a warning; it is particularly concerning that she did not self-revert after realizing the mistake (the edit was only reverted five minutes later). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mrnoone2009

Not that I have anything to do with it, but are you sure that you are not bitting the newcomer with that block you gave to Mrnoone2009? He only made one edit, and got a level two warning before you blocked him for the same thing.Shanman7 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cheers for the revision, that guy really is persistent. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 12:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

Is someone oversighting Royalcorps' talk page postings? I noticed there have been some history changes I can't see any more. Had I known I wouldn't have reverted. That shit shouldn't be in the history. WLU (t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please eliminate any and all versions where my revert got in the way. WLU (t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Last one just disappeared. Thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you remove the one from my talk history too please? :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk ·contribs · email) 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Argh, I thought I'd gotten them all. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The guy is persistent, there have been loads to go through so I doubt anyone blames you for missing one or two.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 14:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'm going to give you some sort of award for the best protection log summary ever: "begone ye wankers".

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs ·email) 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine

Thanks for commenting on the paroxetine discussion page and referring me to information of which I was not aware. The current version of the page is one I can agree with. My concern was the implication that SSRI's cause suicide. The artilce by Healy seemed outdated, but perhaps I was looking at the wrong article. The article by Cochrane is more appropriate, but it only concludes that patients perscribed SSRI's are at an increase risk of suicide (this is probably why it was perscribed in the first place). The Robert Gibbons study and the Gregory Simon study, although focussed on adults, makes clear that SSRI's lower the probability of suicide. As the father of a child who attempted suicide and since that time, medication has seemed to help. Any information you can provide me would be appreciated. Mwalla (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Actually, that's not what the Cochrane Collaboration concluded: it reviewed studies of depressed children and teens who were given either an SSRI or a placebo, and found that those who took SSRIs both showed a positive response and showed an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and feelings. The authors themselves say the results should be interpreted with caution, though. Like I said at Talk:Paroxetine, there's plenty of controversy and little consensus, even among researchers.Fvasconcellos (t·c)17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

That is not factually what I have heard about font vs. typeface, but I'll move it back in the spirit of WP:BRD. Steven Walling (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice interview on the wikiproject!

Just wanted to say congrats on a nice interview covering WP:PHARM! I apologize if I haven't been around as much at the turn of the year -- I was out of town for about two weeks at the end of december, and then playing "catch up" with other things in January,... The only thing I disagree with in your interview is your treatment of the Anabolic steroid article, which IMHO, I don't see the same issues as you do. I actually participated in that review process, and I think the article turned out fine. Instead, I would have focused on the four articles that we did get promoted to FA since December 2007, as well as the GA articles that were promoted. Though, I still have to say that we probably did have a better reviewer response with Bupropion than withAnabolic steroid. This is probably attributable to the lack of good reviewers with the scientific background that the wikiproject requires (and too many wikipedians wanting to focus on mind-numbing pop culture topics like Family Guy),... But overall, I thought you represented the wikiproject quite well, so good work!

On a different topic, I'm thinking that there's got to be a better way to handle the collaboration of the week. I have to admit, I have gotten a bit discouraged with it due to the lack of response; which is why I kind of let it slide during the fall months. For example, we'd get some interest in nominating articles for collaboration early on, but then when I go to designate the current collaboration, I don't see anyone actually participating. So nothing gets done. I think part of the issue is that we have several good editors with pretty specific interests in specific drugs, and they want others to help out with their drug articles, but when it comes to helping others out, we're losing people. Not sure exactly how to go about this? I'm kind of leaning to a bit more of an informal process here,...

Also, there is a new Article alert bot which can automate the process of keeping our FA/GA/PR reviews updated on the main page. I was thinking that it might be useful to utilize this service, though we'd probably have to move the review announcements from the right column over to the left column for space availability reasons.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

emetine.svg

Hi Fv. If it's not too much trouble, could you please add the missing stereochemistry to Image:emetine.svg? The structure is at the PubChem link at emetine. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
That was quick! Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oversighted

... those edits ;) - Alison ❤ 17:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'd hate to see any trouble over such a silly thing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Overly-harsh vandalism warning?

Isn't this a bit excessive? The user had not vandalized any pages since receiving the previous warning, and going straight to a block-warning from that seems a large jump.—ehird 2009–01–25 20:58

Yeah, I do agree in retrospect that it was a vandalism-only account. :) —ehird 2009–01–25 21:58

Chembox trouble

(Applies to drugboxes too) Long iupac names blow up the boxes to huge size and make them display funny/undisplayable on narrow screens or if you enable sidebars and therefore have variable display width. I have as a provisorium inserted spaces into iupac at appropriate places to make the boxes wrap the name into multiple lines. This has been reverted. Look at my talk page and from there to the chembox discussion. Could you help? I think we cannot simply order "the browser has to display this correctly", when it does not in fact. Firefox 2.x and IE. Greetings from old electrician. Besides I think the people tend to blindly revert anon edits, and don't talk to anon editors easily. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ok. Beetstra has reverted ALL my edits as VANDALISM and threatened me with an immediate block. I am running out of good will. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I will not edit for some time. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* OK, why didn't you stop when you were asked nicely? :) I agree this was not an appropriate warning, but discussion is ongoing and it is not developing in favor of manually breaking IUPAC names. Feel free to take a break, but I would rather see you continue your productive work on other fronts while taking part in the discussion.Fvasconcellos (t·c)18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good word for me. I believe they are on a wild goose chase. See my comments and questions on Beetstras talk page. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A good word never hurts when it's in the interest of fairness. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They moved forward and have now a chembox, which hides the iupac name and brings up a scrollbar when you click show, like with the smiles. Look at the chem page, look at hyodesoxycholic acid (whatever this may be). Regarding searchability I am sure they are on a wild goose chase, as the basic wiki search is pretty much shit, most of the chem names in drug boxes are pidgin/pharmacists iupac or hybridizations and mixtures with true iupac thereof. :). dihydro- N- phenylethyl- normorphine etc. as an example of pidgin. I think it is partly also a sectarian (particularly with the calvinists?) fight for the pure teachings of the iupac scriptures. And they definitely treat every "newcomer" or anon as an idiot and shoot him on first sight. Never mind. Thank you for the good words and our many discussions again. Searching will always be a bit an illusion, as long as even pubchem has no coherent and tried and true iupac naming in place and Beilstein and Chem Abstracts use eicosa- instead of icosa- (another point where I got reverted). So I still believe this is a wild goose chase, as long as we can't parse chemical names into some canonical form, a very complex project, if possible and practical at all. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think the scrollbar window makes long names hard to read, like a reading aid for the blind itself. See chem talk. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second—what do you mean, a scrollbar? I thought it would just hide the IUPAC name and expand it when you click "show"? Scrollbars have been a no-no in the past. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is the same from me. If I click these boxes open, then I get the text just like I would get it originally. Do you mean that your box does not change size, but instead you get the full name with a horizontal scroll-bar? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, look Hyodeoxycholic acid, click IUPAC name "show" and you have a horizontal scroll bar. Firefox 2.x 70.137.173.82 (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That does not happen in Opera .. (utters a bad word). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And also not in Firefox. Lets mention this on the WT:CHEM discussion. --Dirk BeetstraT C 14:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It's "overflow: auto". Set it as a collapsible list without "overflow: auto" and it should display as I expected it to.Fvasconcellos (t·c)14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cefroxadine.svg

There is a double bond missing in the heterocyclic ring in Image:Cefroxadine.svg. Can you please fix it? Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done, that was odd. I'm trying out a new method of generating SVGs (export to PDF → import to Inkscape, obviates the need for exporting twice) and something must have gone awry. Thanks for noticing!Fvasconcellos (t·c)20:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Drug names question

Hello,
Thank you for peer reviewing Icos! I saw your comment at the peer review, and I'm a little confused. Should everywhere the article says "Cialis" be changed to "tadalafil"? I don't think that would help the article's flow. The general rule at the Chemistry style guide says thatGenerally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. Most English speakers would recognize "Cialis" better than "tadalafil". I understand that some drugs have different trade names in different countries, so it makes sense to use the INN. Here, though, I think Cialis is the only trade name that has been used. Also, since the article is on the company, I think it makes more sense to follow the brand name. For example, the sentence Revenue from Cialis gave Icos its first-ever quarterly profit in August 2006 becomes less precise when tadalafil is substituted in (this will become even more true when a generic comes out). Similarly, the marketing section applies specifically to the Cialis brand. I'll be bold in suggesting that drug names give priority to INN names in articles on the compound, but give priority to brand names in articles on the company producing the drug (like the articles sildenafil andPfizer). Another example: Johnson & Johnson markets paracetamol doesn't sound right; Johnson & Johnson markets Tylenoldoes. Again, thank you for your help! Shubinator (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok, that makes sense; I've made changes accordingly. I don't know if the experimental drugs (Pafase, LeukArrest, Resiniferatoxin) ever got INN names. Should I also change the subsection name to "Tadalafil"? Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! (And you're always welcome to review the article more.) Shubinator (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Temazepam

Can you check the claims of temazepam involvement in death by 2005 report of poison control centers? I have looked at the poison control center web site itself, and the cited numbers in the temazepam article absolutely do not match that. These are refs 41 and 42 in the article. (I cannot check because thats for subscriber only) Or can you funnel this through to somebody who has access? Looks to me like another hard to verify possible misrepresentation. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Source here does not support that, annual reports of the poison control centers.

http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NPDS/AnnualReports/tabid/125/Default.aspx

But before erasing I like a second opinion 70.137.173.82 (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In my reading of the 2005 report the 243 cases of death with benzodiazepines are suicides, where benzodiazepines were used together with e.g. morphine, heart medications and other more toxic substances, probably due to some advice in the web "how to commit suicide". I don't see a dominance of temazepam there. (See the list of 1200 deaths in total, detailed breakdown of the list) In my interpretation this list is categorized for contributing substances. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I shouldn't even be logged in... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the statement in the WP article conveys the impression that there were 65000 benzodiazepine exposures, of which 243 resulted in death by benzodiazepines. Closer inspection shows, that a benzodiazepine exposure death is any death, where benzodiazepines were found (among other things). So I believe the article contains misleading phrasing. In a different part of the report the problem of causality is addressed. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've finally had a chance to skim the reports. I don't think the current wording of In 2005, a total of 67,593 benzodiazepine exposures were reported to US poison control centers, of which 3018 (4.46%) resulted in major toxicity and 243 (0.35%) resulted in death is misleading at all, but the preceding and following sentences may be; I didn't find any explicit reference to temazepam in the body of either report. The editor who added that information probably collated information from the tables—I'll go through them when I have more time. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This report (linked from above page)

http://www.aapcc.org/archive/2005.htm

mentions temazepam a few times, together with other poisons in Table 21. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I have your support

I wanted to know if you would support a recent CfD that I proposed atWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages? kilbad (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I am sorry about that, it won't happen again. kilbad (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New pharmacology categorization draft

I have taken the ongoing discussion at WT:PHARM:CAT, and created a new working draft atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization#Draft_III, outlining the proposed uppermost 3-4 levels. If you have time, I would appreciate your feedback concerning the categorization scheme. kilbad (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I read and appreciate your comments, and wanted to know if you would post what your alternative "Pharmacological agents by organ system" ATC level 1 mirroring category and subcategories would look like? kilbad (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have posted a new draft based on your outline and comments, and would appreciate some feedback if you are available. Thanks again! kilbad (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the ATC level 2 names to the current draft in hopes that editors will scrutinize and modify them into good category names, making them specific to pharmacology articles. However, today I wanted to ask you if there are any other editors you know who work on pharm-related content, but who are not yet part of the discussion. I want to involve as many people as possible. Regardless, thanks again for all your help. kilbad (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely happy with the proposed scheme, but neither do I have enough time to come up with any improvements; not for a couple of weeks, at least. I see Anypodetos and Dr. Cash have gotten involved as well; Alison (talk · contribs) was once very active on pharm topics, particularly articles on endocrine drugs. You may want to leave her a message, though she hasn't been around much recently either. Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 22:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Fvasconcellos, thank you for your reply, particularly given how busy you are. I have since notifiedAlison (talk · contribs) about the categorization discussion; however, given that you are not entirely happy with the proposed scheme, I have no problem letting it sit for the next couple weeks until you can look at it again. It is very important to me that everyone is heard out and consensus is reached, particularly among you major pharm contributors. Thanks again for all your help.kilbad (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Have things in your life calmed at all since my last post? kilbad (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sort of :) I can't apologize enough, but work takes precedence... I should will be back in full swing by the weekend.Fvasconcellos (t·c)01:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand what it is like to be busy... so you get to the draft when you get to it... no rush. WP:PHARM:CAT is not going anywhere, and I am not going to move forward with anything until I read your feedback. kilbad (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blond, blue eyed?

Blond, blue eyed, as tough as leather, as hard as Krupp-steel? Tigers, lions, chinese horoscope, heraldics? Hitler, Himmler, Nazis, world wars? Temazepam, the KGB and CIA and the benzo-menace to the Christian world as we know it, spread by the eastern block agents of the axis of evil? I did think my part, but conjectured there might be a nest of them somewhere? 70.137.130.4 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Google VeronicaPR. I hate to say it, but with a kindergarten of editors around, it is no fun. Time to quit. Look at my talk page. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In particular I am getting tired of pointless and endless revert wars, and then being called drug addled mess by kindergarten obviously w.o. any formal education. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See list of related IPs from Windsor, Ontario - on my talk page. The Veronica/Goodson club I guess. maybe some fraternity? 70.137.130.4 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am ashamed of the glorification of Nazi ideology by some Germans. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page 70.137.130.4 (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Decree-law 15/93

Now you have Pemoline in twice, in different schedules? 70.137.130.4 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy, I'm fixing it as I go along! It's a hefty piece of legislation, and I'm checking amendments as well :)Fvasconcellos (t·c)00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine

Hi. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the Paroxetine page. In my view, warnings about "suicide ideation" belong in a sub section and not in the intorduction. Why is it that the risk of "suicide ideation" gets highlighted, but not the reduction in risk of actual suicide. Here is an article you may find useful: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/11/after_2_decade_decline_teen_su.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.55(talk) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, this is a highly controversial topic and should be treated as such. I believe suicidality should be mentioned in the lead, but as a point of contention and nothing more. A more detailed discussion of the current state of (conflicting) evidence would certainly be welcome in the body of the article.Fvasconcellos (t·c)12:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I find it interesting that the term "suicidality" was invented by those trying to prove a relationship between SSRI's and suicide. Since a statistically significant relationship does not exist, they instead use "suicidality". I think Robert Gibbons will have this cleared up within the next 18 months. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Mwalla (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Signpost redesign

Thanks for the kind words, they're much appreciated. :) PretzelsTalk! 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promoteWikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Temazepam and Anon 70.137. grievance

Take a look at temazepam. I have proofread against refs, got blindly reverted by a vandal hunter. This was the n-th time in a row that I got wrongly reverted on a hunch as vandal, because editing as IP. So reverted it and call him a$$hole. Next one guy inserts spam picture of generic pills into the article. I revert him, saying thats just generic pills, spam, uninformative, redundant, we know how generic pills look like, thinking its an ad for Mylan Inc. He reverts, saying he has nothing to do with the company, I revert saying even then its just a pic of generic pills, could as well be worm medicine. He warns me next edit is 3rr and reports me as IP vandal. Get blocked for 3 days by overzealous admin. I am fed up. Is this a kindergarten, including the admins? I am doing high quality edits with great attention to the detail including proofreading of articles against refs and statistics, and continuously get sabotaged by vandal hunters, vandal patrol and vandal police. Thats harassment. They didn't even give me a warning. (Writing this after rebooting, have variable IP, I know, block evasion) I feel the kindergarten with the adminazi babies has to do their editing alone from now on. Disillusioned greetings from your thankful co-editor. You have been of much help. 70.137.146.36 (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Take it easy, keep the ranting to a minimum and the productive editing to a maximum :) And you're still not convinced you should get an account? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe we've now got something of a productive discussion going on the temazepam talk page - I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter of whether images of generic pills are "notable" for inclusion on a drug pages (although clearly article content doesn't directly fall under WP:N). Best, St3vo (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to pitch in—I may have some free time starting tomorrow. You may be interested inthis brief WP:PHARM discussion for a little background. Best,Fvasconcellos (t·c)03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised to see an outside source Wikidoc still keeping an old version of the temazepam article as a golden standard here[1] Including the KGB and all misrepresentations. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, our current temazepam pharmacokinetics section looks like plagiarized from the drug monograph. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On the temazepam talk consensus has not be reached about inclusion of nondescript pictures of nondescript generic pills. I tried to ask for information value and usefulness of these pictures. This question has not been addressed, except by repetition of the statement that they are informative and useful. I am taking this as a precedent for lowering the notability threshold for non-notable brand name products too, as seen in Oral B. Told them now that I drop the objection if they can arrange that I can print out coupons for the shown products. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Take a look at my ex-page (you know) for an example of blatant censorship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.137.146.36

I think I cannot support the Wiki project any more, as it has substantially transformed itself into a pyramid scheme of censorship. You have been very considerate and understanding and helped to find good solutions. But I think a new breed of admins is taking over. It really parallels the psychology as seen in the rising Hitler Germany and with the Red Brigades of Mao, that too young people, who are too immature, turn savage, when given authority. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> I've said it before, and I'll say it again—please, lay off the rants. Move on—your work is far too good to be lost in a haze of bizarre comments and... let's call them unfortunate comparisons, which the community has little patience and goodwill for, not least because this has been the hallmark of disruptive users in the past.
I understand your idea of a "pyramid scheme of censorship", but I assure you that it isn't so. I'm not sure you realize how quickly things can go downhill in an environment that is in effect self-regulating, such as Wikipedia. We've had, and have, our share of troublesome users, hoaxes, faux experts leading the community astray, real experts being misunderstood and disrespected... trust me, what you're seeing is nothing more than the community's attempt to protect itself—and, most importantly, the content we are supposed to build and safeguard. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not only a pyramid of censorship, even if unintended, but it is also a pyramid scheme of authority over others. From your remarks I can derive, that it has some of the characteristics of a "neighborhood watch", and like all these systems (including militias and in the old days Hitler groups etc) it psychologically sometimes attracts personalities with a will to exert power over others, control others, forbid, censor etc. you see the point. If such responsibilities are given to people who eagerly wish for them, then also misuse and corruption of power occurs. You have been an example of an admin with great patience and the will to be righteous and further the project. Some others are not like that, but act largely like a referee, in machine like speed and mindlessness. Whistle - pull yellow card - pull red card. Discussion useless. I agree that vandals and trolls are a problem, I have corrected enough edits with "Exchange greater and less" etc. and much worse subtle ones, as well as the edits of the immature editors, adding obscenities. Never mind, I am probably idiosyncratic because of the new breed of young business managers, with much the same traits, thrive for power, mindless execution without questions asked, quick rise to higher position. The business world is full of this type of personality. (and I have to take care that I am not corrupted by the fact) Sorry man, I need a vacation, like the terminator said. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To bring up another slightly unfortunate comparison. Of course we do all this to protect our community from vandals etc. In the USA we also do all to protect our freedom from terrorists. In the result we have warrantless searches, telephone taps without judicial control, it may be that you are stalked, your friends interviewed and (in parallel case of a block) your livelihood destroyed by investigations at your employer. What freedom are we defending then?

This is an analogy under a completely formal aspect. A real or perceived external threat to a community - like vandals to Wikipedia, terrorists to Bush-USA, "Bolsheviki" to the Weimar Republic of Germany- leads to a reaction of increased anxiety, control, censorship and loss of academic freedom. It also brings forward a breed of "police-type" personalities with a tendency to exert power, control and micromanagement. In all cases the result are fascist tendencies and loss of freedoms, including academic freedom and style. (In the case of Bush-USA going so far that academic communications are censored by police types wrt. export control, WMD, publication of dangerous results etc.)

I believe in the early days the WP was more of an academic community. With the growing size it has attracted both, idiot schoolboys as vandals, and idiot schoolboys as wannabe thought police, censors, vandal hunters. At least my recent communications didn't sound like with academics.

In the case of my block somebody yelled vandal at 2 reasonable reverts, given with reason. See history temazepam. This was preceded by an accidential revert of a different edit by Letsdrinktea, it was a false alarm and he apologized. (Probably just a blind revert of an IP edit). In the result the admin first accuses me of edit warring 3rr, gives me 72hrs block. I complain, now he finds a BADWORD in a previous edit summary, but finds now it was not 3rr. Still insist it was edit warring and CIVIL, gives me 31hrs. I complain, say:

If the police kicks your door in on false alarm and you say wtf? and its false alarm, but they now say "but you said wtf?" and handcuff you and you complain and they beat your snout in for resisting arrest and book you. Are they then nazis?

And he gives me 72 hours for calling him nazi. Then I told him not to be so overly eager, before he turns himself into theFreisler of Wikiland. Now he claims I have compared Wikipedians as a whole to National Socialists etc. etc., and tries to book me on soapboxing.

In a previous edit I wrote: To be precise, I think for quite some time that they must be either disformed by a narrow education, or they are autists, or they are avatars of an artificial intelligence program. Because they not only take things at face value, missing methaphoric meaning, but they sometimes miss the whole semantic of what I am saying and jump on trigger-words. For some time I have taken this as an outgrowth of political correctness, but if it is really only this, then something is really wrong with them. They really behave like talking heads. Is the American system like that today? The Americans of 1970 were different.

In particular the disparity between scientific knowledge base and semantic processing is what reminds me most of autists or AI avatars.

There was an old program on the PDP11 in 1970, it was called "The Psychiatrist", and it essentially jumped on trigger words, asked for your feelings of guilt, your childhood, your mother etc. and it sounded pretty genuine. These guys are on the same level. It looks like a Prolog program. Meanwhile I am really tending away from autists, towards avatars, after this last experiment. If you leave the domain of predicates : unreliable(x), malformed_phrase(x), sensationalist(x) and statements logically built on them, they are lost. See also the discussion at talk:temazepam as an example. The guys are fully lost on the meaning of what I am saying.

And if that is not AI, then it is a bad simulation, along the lines of what Silicon Valley geeks call "admin-bot" or the like.

And that makes me really sick, also due to my run ins with admin-bots in real life. (Yes they run whole departments in industry) 70.137.152.60 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for February 2009

The Alternative music WikiProjectNewsletter
Issue 23 - February 2009
"I want to find the guy that invented compression and tear his liver out. I hate it. It makes everything sound like a beer commercial." - Steve Albini
Project news
New members

MikeGruz and Blackadam2 joined the alternative music fold during February.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot II (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new policy

As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:

A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say

  • Support.

or

  • Oppose.

Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not meaningfully active in this area, but if discussion is still underway by next week, I'll have a look :)Fvasconcellos (t·c)01:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 

Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Atorvastatin

Thank you for your support Maen. K. A. (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm... you're welcome, though I see you haven't really gotten around to implementing my suggestions? I apologize for not contributing more thoroughly to the review. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How much of a chemical is a drug?

Hi Fvas

I recall you are quite active in drug articles. Would you like to weigh inhere? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. Looks like I'll be playing catch-up over the next few days... :)Fvasconcellos (t·c)14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fvasconcellos/Archive_21&oldid=1079926084"