Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 19

Multiple Problems in Pathophysiology
I have just made three edits in the Pathophysiology section.

1. For the third time, I have had to correct the mention of Zametkin's 1993 study. I do not understand how someone can reference that study without mentioning the significant differences between the ADHD and control subjects, including one particular difference that was statistically significantly correlated with symptom severity.

2. I also had to correct similar problems with the mention of Zametkin's 1997 study. In both of these situations, the section asserted that the studies failed to find global brain glucose differences (true), but failed to mention statistically significant differences in specific brain areas (biiig thing to leave out).

3. Despite all of the back and forth between LG and I previously regarding Leo & Cohen's paper criticizing Castellanos' lobar volumetric studies, in which we had agreed as to which of Leo & Cohen's claims were accurate, I found this section to once again contain inaccurate information. Specifically, the claim that Castellanos' subjects were 2 years apart (Castellanos study specifically mentioned using age-matched controls), and the claim that there were differences in height and weight (Castellanos study did not include this information at all).

Information cited in Wikipedia must be verifiable. That means that if you check the reference for something cited in this article, it ought to reasonably match what we've written here. So for example, one should not cite that Smith et. al. failed to find significant differences between patients and controls, if the study actually did find statistically significant differences between patients and controls. Similarly, if we cite Brown as claiming that Smith's patients were younger than his control subjects, we need to actually check Smith's study to verify that this is true. I don't care whether Brown's paper passed peer review, his reviewers might have been drunk, high, bribed, incompetent, whatever. Where information can be verified, it should. If checking Smith's paper finds that he used age-matched controls, we need to remove Brown's claims. Similarly, if Brown claims that Smith's patients had significant differences in height and weight as compared to controls, and Smith did not include height and weight in his study, that should give us pause as well.

Please understand that my concern here is not as to "sides" or "debate" or any of that crap. My concern is that if we cite an article, we should be accurate in our description, and we need to actually make sure that what is written on this page is verifiable. Note that I did not remove the statements that Zametkin failed to find differences in global glucose metabolism, because this is a verifiably accurate claim, his 1993 and 1997 studies didn't find global differences...but to omit that he found statistically significant differences between patients and controls at all leaves out quite a bit. Omitting that there were differences that were significantly correlated with symptom severity in the 1993 study can only be described as a serious failure.

In fact, I consider the need to have made these changes to be a failure. A failure on all of us, myself included, for not having been more careful in double-checking sources. The fact that Zametkin's 1993 study has been repeatedly misrepresented on this page despite numerous corrections, and the fact that the problems with Leo & Cohen's study had been discussed on the talk page make this failure even more egregious. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your changes look fine to me. Good job. I do not know who kept misrepresenting Zametkin's study? Anyway it is sorted out now. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added some info at the top that I found from a 2005 review of neuroimaging studies. Found it actually by accident while reading through a neurologist's blog.  Unfortunately all I have access to is the abstract at the moment, but it sounds interesting enough that I might head over to the library tomorrow and see what else is in it.  It mentions four regions that keep popping up in the literature in various other studies, but this one looks like they've done a pretty thorough review from various avenues of approach that seem to keep pointing back to these regions.  The abstract implies that they discuss the possibility of future clinical uses for neuroimaging, which should be interesting even if it is still speculative. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remind me in January
ArbCom follow-up: diff, FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hordaland (talk • contribs) 09:28, July 14, 2009

MCOTW
I am considering making this article medical collaboration of the week given its overwhelming support. Could I have a guarantee of sorts that this will be a positive process without edit wars and nastiness? JFW | T@lk  22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will agree to 1RR restrictions while the collaboration is taking place, and I hope the other regulars around here will do the same. For those of you who don't know, 1RR means 1 revert, then discussion, except in the case of vandalism.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact the last bit of the ArbCom process hasn't closed yet, if that was what you were waiting for. But things have been calm here for a while. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the MCOTW! - Hordaland (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, as far as I can see the ArbCom / ADHD case(s) are finally done. Result: scuro topic banned for 1 year; Literaturegeek voluntarily staying away for a very long time; Doc James seems to have been chased away but not formally, so hopefully we can get him back.  So now MCOTW can descend upon the article(s) and get it/them up to featured!  Welcome.  - Hordaland (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll give this another day or two to mature. Thanks for agreeing on clear terms of references. MCOTW may bring some fresh eyes and perhaps will bring it up to GA status. JFW | T@lk  22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmm. Another day or two?  Another month or two?  Hordaland (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Image of brain
It is strange that we have a monster image of a brain when the cause of ADHD is as of yet unknown. I am a little unsure how this adds to the page at all? I would not have as much of an issue with it if it was at least of normal size. Comments? Here is a paper discussing the different prevailing approaches to mental illness. do idiopathic pathologies of biology account for psychological abnormalities or do pathological environments produce the biological and psychological aberrations? We conclude that the evidence strongly supports the position that stress can cause a whole range of biological and psychological changes in normal organisms with intact central nervous systems; indeed, there is a good case to support the view that the system produces these abnormalities by responding to stress in the way evolutionary forces have designed it to respond—in short, failure to respond in ways we see it responding would indicate pathology, or, as the title of our paper has it, “you’d have to be sick not to be crazy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

International perspective
Am attempting to put more of an international perspective in this article. Looking at some WHO sources. This one on page two states: the diagnosis can be symptomatic of family dysfunction, rather than individual psychopathology, and may reflect inadequacies in the educational system. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation from Ramanathan & White 2001
A introduced text that was copied at least in part from Ramanathan & White 2001. The editor in question seems to have not known about Wikipedia copyright policy, as they've also inserted copyrighted text on other pages. I'll leave a note on the editor's talk page. I've reverted the edits. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversies
I think this section should be expanded and include information around how ADHD does not actually exist as a disease and such attention "disorders" are in fact American generated rubbish that discipline can prevent. Gavin (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a minority opinion and is addressed in my opinion in sufficient length already. Further info if substantiated should be in the subpage. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.91.19 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "That is a minority opinion" Did you do a survey? The opinion is not presented neutrally, but whether it's a minority opinion is neither substantiated, nor relevant. Truth is not established by popular vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.203.194 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LoL it is on Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.49.180 (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not gone thru any attention disorder and its only your opinion. if you are not able to focus your mind then there is no question of discipline.i tried for years to discipline by doing mediattion etc, but it didnt help.physical exercised and yoga is the way to start but it takes years and frustratingly slow. and still not recovered just feeling better. after reading this i am planning to check with psycologist and go thru the medication.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.133.75 (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction too long
I do not think it is too long? If others agree will remove the tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentary to Add
I have no idea how to edit the actual article but I wanted to add this great 1 hour documentary sponsored by the Canadian Government on ADHD. This can be added in the Society and Culture section as there is an article on a PBS documentary there as well. Below is the link to the site about the film and the film itself.

Documentary Film http://news.globaltv.com/Loving/2009300/story.html

Site about Film http://totallyadd.com/

Please add this in to whoever knows how to edit the article.


 * Will look when I have time. Can you add a summary below of the text you think should be added.   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Modafinil under Non-Stimulant Medication
I don't think that calling modafinil non-stimulant in this article is correct. It is called analeptic and non-stimulant in the same sentence I believe, which is odd considering the meaning of the word analeptic. I think it would be better to call it a non-amphetamine or non-traditional stimulant or something along those lines. Clearly it does have many of the same qualities of amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, and maybe cocaine. It expect that studies have shown that modafinil would substitute for amphetamine despite their differences. Labelinng modafinil as non-stimulant ignores the fact that is can be addictive and does have stimulant effects. 24.196.81.233 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusing and unreadable
Right where the table of contents are there is a little blue window that states some text, it is very hard to read and is out of place. It is offset, please someone fix this. User:BennyK95 19:34, April 09, 2010 (UTC)

HTML ALIGNMENT PROBLEMS!!! HTML PPL PLZ HELP!
The statement on the page from the Excerpt from the International Consensus Statement on ADHD January 2002 is align improperly causing it to align underneath the contents table, making it hard to read. Someone with good html skills needes to fix this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.144.56 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC) That was my fault I didn't check it with different resolutions. 7mike5000 (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unclear--Please Revise
"ADHD is the most commonly studied and diagnosed for children psychiatric disorder in children..."

"Its symptoms can be difficult to differentiate from other disorders, increasing the likelihood that the diagnosis of ADHD will be missed[15] or vice versa."

The first quote doesn't make sense (although my guess would be that removing "for children" would fix it), and in the second it's not at all clear what "vice versa" is refering to. Presumably, the opposite of "the dianosis of ADHD will be missed" would be that the diagnosis would not be missed, but it seems more likely that the author meant either a false diagnosis or a misdiagnosis.

I don't know enough about this topic to fix these. Could somebody who does, please do so? 129.15.131.230 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Case Point:

Doc James your writing is horrible and unintelligible. The above comment came from: IP Address 129.15.131.230 Host ip-129-15-131-230.fescfwsm.ou.edu Location US, United States City Norman, OK 73019

I happen to be in: Your IP Address is 70.154.235.200 IP Address 70.154.235.200  [ Who Is | Trace Route | RBL Check ] Hostname adsl-070-154-235-200.sip.dab.bellsouth.net Geo IP Location Information IP Location US, United States City Daytona Beach,FL,-

More than likely some college kid is trying to find out about ADHD and they find poorly worded nonsense.

I recommend that we revert to this version here: The one that's written in English. MIKE 70.154.235.200 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mike, your comments seem to be focused on the contributors (and your beliefs about their skill level), and many of them seem to violate WP:CIVIL. Incivility and insults doesn't serve the article well; it just makes it nastier for everyone to deal with you and drives people away.  Please consider ways to politely collaborate with people.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually didn't make any intial comments about anybody, it's not my nature, I believe in civility. Comments like this would set anybody off; Article needs serious cleanup, writing a terrible article.,improved writting (sic) style, formating (sic) is just to poor, many people would consider comments like that to be uncivil. Then to write passages like biological active chemicals in the brain are in the state of equilibrium and disequilibrium.[citation needed] and with jargon like this "high interrater reliability, good face validity, and high predictability" makes it more infuriating.


 * When one of the people making the comments and butchering the article alleges to be a Physician and approves of passages in an article on the deadliest psychiatric disorder, that kid's read, like; with 6-20% of those who are diagnosed with the disorder eventually dying from related causes.[48] and the same paragraph includes four references to suicide and one to mortality. And approves of the use of triggering images in the same article, that's maddening. I'm human.7mike5000 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that, if you really want the article to improve, then you need to find ways of winning friends and influencing people even when you're frustrated or angry. It is my opinion that telling people that their efforts are "horrible" or "unintelligible" or that they are "whiner's" [sic] isn't going to help you reach your stated goal.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a more composed disposition than I do. I'm can actually be the poster child for ADHD it's probably because some "biological active chemicals in my "brain are in the state of equilibrium and disequilibrium".[citation needed] So I'm going to go play somewhere else. People who have Eating disorders like Anorexia nervosa and people who grew up in Foster care seem to be more laid back and they also have a high interrater reliability, good face validity, and high predictability I like that in people.7mike5000 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved until citations available
It is a health condition involving biologically active substances in the brain. In childhood ADHD, and some cases of adult ADHD, biological active chemicals in the brain are in the state of equilibrium and disequilibrium.

(Implying more certainty in the mechanism of the condition than actually exists) Arfgab (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree expecially since we have a review that states "The pathophysiology of ADHD is unclear and there are a number of competing theories.[84]"-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis
I just reverted because it seemed to me that it was a general statement about physical causes of psychiatric illness, and stating that all physical causes needed to be ruled out before diagnosing ADHD fell somewhere between WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:UNDUE weight. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that revert. There already an entire section on Differential diagnoses. There's no need to state differential diagnosis is needed multiple times. --gwc (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible boxes prohibited
MOS:COLLAPSE prohibits the use of show/hide boxes in article text, i.e., how they were recently used here. Such boxes may also reduce WP:ACCESS to some readers with disabilities or limited computing resources.

I realize that Wikipedia's Manual of Style is enormous, and it's unreasonable to expect editors to automatically know every detail, but now that we do know this particular detail, let's please keep the article compliant on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only answering this because I'm really bored, excruciatingly so, and I also find it kind of amusing. People writing and, or, approving of psychologically harmful disinformation, that starving girls read, including the expressed desire to include a potentially triggering image of such a starving girl, illicits no response whatsoever. A collapsible box however, seems to be somehow construed as a threat to civilization. One inane comment after another becomes somewhat irritating.
 * Despite only having a ninth grade education, I actually did learn how to read. I also learned the proper use of Latin phrases, e.g.; id est (i.e) and exempli gratia (e.g.). For example, or to use an abbreviation of a Latin phrase, e.g.; ...in article text, i.e., how they were recently used here. Should have been e.g., not, i.e.. That being said, I read this:
 * MOS:COLLAPSE:Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable for use, but should not be used in article prose. This includes reference lists, image galleries, and image captions; Collapsible sections are useful in ,infoboxes, or to consolidate information already covered in prose.


 * This is not prose:
 * Candidate genes include dopamine transporter, dopamine receptors D2/D3,[46] dopamine beta-hydroxylase monoamine oxidase A, catecholamine-methyl transferase, serotonin transporter promoter (SLC6A4), 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A receptor (5-HT2A), 5-hydroxytryptamine 1B receptor (5-HT1B),[47] the 10-repeat allele of the DAT1 gene,[48] the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene,[48] and the dopamine beta hydroxylase gene (DBH TaqI).[49]


 * Your alleged concern over compliance with WP:ACCESS is unwarranted and seems to be self serving. It says nothing about "Collapsible boxes". As I stated in an aforementioned paragraph, anorectic kids reading about death, mortality and suicide after enjoying a triggering look at an inappropriate image should be a cause for concern not "Collapsible boxes".
 * You're a college graduate with according to you "This user's Intelligence Quotient is annoyingly high, please conduct yourself accordingly, chose your arguments wisely, and learn the difference between e.g. and i.e., also thank you for giving me something to do by writing a response, I was sooooo bored. Cura, ut valeas 7mike5000 (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It happens that I specifically intended id est, or "that is": 'prohibited in article text, that is, how they were recently used here.'
 * I don't understand how my reference to WP:ACCESS, which names the function used by your collapsible boxes, could be either "unwarranted" or "self-serving". I will assume that you were unaware that you were using WP:HiddenFunction.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi,um, This is not correct English composition; "prohibited in article text, that is, how they were recently used here"
 * When you use id est or "That is" in that context you are expounding upon and explaining the original sentence, e.g., prohibited in article text, that is", you can't use it. You used an example, thus e.g. or the English equivalent "for example", or the more simplistic, "like", prohibited in article text, like, how they were recently used here.
 * As far as this:WP:ACCESS,
 * "However', consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their reading experience is possible; it is recognised that it will inevitably be inferior".


 * I may be wrong but your reference to WP:HiddenFunction concerns hiding text not to a collapsible table.
 * As of December 29, 2006, this technique is disabled on this wiki. The class hiddenStructure still exists in the CSS, but now outlines the text in green instead of hiding the text. This is to find any remaining instances of hiddenStructure in templates. Note that this only disables use of the CSS class hiddenStructure. It does not prevent use of similar tags like display: none or visibility: hidden.


 * The collapsible boxes contain information that serves as an addendum to what is in the article. It adds to the reading experience by making the page neater. The example I used with the "Genes" is a prime example, looking at that abortion is enough to give somebody a headache.


 * The collapsible boxes I added in the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Mathausen concentration camp articles, among others, makes the pages look neater and more interesting. Nobody has complained about:WP:ACCESS.


 * Why do I think It's a shame this article is written like garbage? It occupies the first spot in the search results. People actually do access Wikipedia for medical information. The article is not only poorly written as regards to formatting, syntax, lack of images, etc., it also contains example after useless example of "ADHD is contoversial" nonsense. That does a disservice to people with the disorder. Referencing a 2001 television program about the "ADHD controversy" or including the views of Tom Cruise does nothing except to place doubts, unwarranted ones, in peoples minds.7mike5000 (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Some anal retentive people complain about collapsible boxes and for some reason the code no longer works. That's awesome. So the article's that actually are well written and formatted that used them now look like abortions. People that brag about their I.Q's usually don't have much one. I stumbled to school hungry with clothes that didn't fit in a foster home and still scored in the 97% percentile rank. And that means absolutely squat. The biggest complaint artists on here are the one's with the least intellectual and creativity ability. I looked on the thyroid gland article and it had listed that the thyroid was part of the "endocinal jubachina system", all the rocket scientists bragging about their "high I.Q.'s" and college degrees and yet it sat there for years. And this guy masquerading as a doctor, calling himself "DOC JAMES" has got some major malfunction guy shouldn't be contributing to articles on dog feces, any retard can throw on scrubs take a picture and call themselves a doctor. I'm going to sign up under a different name, I'm going to pretend I'm a Rhodes Scholar and a nuclear physicist. So I can put things like "this user has a Ph.D" on the user page. And I'm going to superimpose Brad Pitt's face on my body too instead of Mister Bean's.7mike5000 (talk)


 * Note: This comment is currently part of a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. TeamZissou (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly article on electrophysiology
I came across a scholarly article on electrophysiology. Scholarly articles might be relatively underrepresented for the electrophysiology in this article. There might be enough information add a sub-section to the symptoms section.
 * Robert J. Barry, Adam R. Clarke, Stuart J. Johnstone, "A review of electrophysiology in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: I. Qualitative and quantitative electroencephalography," Clinical Neurophysiology 114.2 (February 2003): 171-183.
 * ISSN 1388-2457, DOI: 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00362-0. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VNP-47GHSNT-7/2/87271d76205f66b0ba90e6eef6c7a768)

--gwc (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with
 Issues resolved == Article needs serious cleanup ==

Is it just me, or does this article look like it was written by someone with ADHD? I mean seriously. The problem with the Excerpt from the International Consensus Statement on ADHD January 2002 problem has been cited twice already in this talk page. There are also a large number of colored text boxes, many with a [Show] link. I've never seen anything like this in any other wikipedia article. Why not throw some javascript in there while we're at it? All this article needs is a blink tag somewhere and I think it'd be complete. 71.93.61.178 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have ADHD,

and I have made several articles that look better than this. So don't go blaming people with ADHD on writing a terrible article. Just because people have ADHD doesn't mean they're mentally handicapped. And I agree; this article does need cleanup. I'll add cleanup of this article to my to-do list. The Utahraptor (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend that we revert to this

version here. as 1)the huge changes in formatting makes this page very hard to read contravening WP:MEDMOS 2) much of the new content is based on primary research contravening WP:MEDRS. 3) Many of the new images do not directly relate to ADHD Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Everybody's a critic: I don't mind constructive criticism, but there is a difference between criticism and blatant ad hominem attacks. Article needs serious cleanup, writing a terrible article.,improved writting (sic) style, formating (sic) is just to poor I read WP:MEDRS, there is nothing in there that say's an article should be dull, boring, poorly written, uninformative, lame, uncolorful and include blatant factual errors. i.e. it doesn't have to look like crap. Out of maybe 25,000 or more people who read the article after I redid it, 3 misanthropes had a problem with it. I redid the formatting, images and partially rewrote: redid the formatting, images and added a section and a large number of colored text boxes, many with a [Show] link no whiny complaints, I did get this though ''Man, you are doing an awesome job on Auschwitz. Keep up the good work, and thanks for making all your edits more easily reviewed''. Akuvar (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC) and added a large number of colored text boxes, many with a [Show] link ;no whiny complaints, and it's also a featured article I rewrote the entire thing, including adding  a large number of colored text boxes, many with a [Show] link .no whiny complaints, got this though: ''You may want to run the page through a colour check. I think the blue [show/hide] links on the aquamarine background might be troublesome to see. Otherwise, this should go to WP:FAC soon; amazing work! '' - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) it and reformatted it.no whiny complaints most of it and reformatted it and added images.no whiny complaints rewrote it, reformatted it, added images.no whiny complaints rewrote it, reformatted it added images.As of yet just one whiny complaint, and he aplogised. of it, reformatted it and added images. Hi Mike, ..... You do appear to be a lot more knowledgeable than I on this subject. I have reverted the article back to where you left it. Feel free to add more information, I won't be editing this page any more barring correcting vandalism I will leave it to more knowledgeable people..I apologise for any problems caused. Peace be with you...regards.....StevieNic (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Auschwitz concentration camp;I
 * Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp: I redid the formatting and images
 * Eating disorders:
 * Skull fracture:rewrote
 * Foster care:rewrote
 * Monowitz concentration camp:
 * Bullenhuser Damm:
 * Anorexia nervosa:I rewrote most

The Whiner's

behind an I.P. address and has contibuted such incredibly important information to humanity as '''Created page with 'A season 1 episode of Sliders, "Last Days", features an asteroid "2956 Yeoman" that is on a collision course with Earth. Don't know if that's ...''' Utahraptor|The Utahraptor]] I have made several articles that look better than this. This guy thinks he's a dinosaur and writes articles three paragraphs long...that he plagiarizes.Peerless, Utah looks just like http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ut-carboncounty3.html modern day incarnation of Mark Twain. An alleged Physician and Professor who doesn't have a grasp of basic medical terms like Etiology" and "Pathophysiology"
 * 71.93.61.178 Someone so self assured they hide
 * [[User:The
 * Doc James and this guy who thinks he is a

I don't write things that harm people oversight, over such articles as Anorexia nervosa had kids who are suffering and starving themselves to death, reading things like this poorly written garbage: Prognosis: Anorexia is thought to have the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder, with anywhere from 6-20% of those who are diagnosed with the disorder eventually  dying from related causes.[48] The suicide rate of people with anorexia is also higher than that of the general population.[49] In a longitudinal study women diagnosed with either DSM-IV anorexia nervosa (n = 136) or bulimia nervosa (n = 110) respectively who were assessed every 6 – 12 months over an 8 year period are at a considerable risk of committing suicide. Clinicians were warned of the risks as 15% of subjects reported at least one 'suicide attempt. It was noted that significantly more anorexia (22.1%) than bulimia (10.9%) subjects made a suicide attempt.[50] thought it would be more appropriate to read this:
 * Doc James  incredible expert medical
 * User:7mike5000 ninth grade education guy;

Another esteemed expert medical opinion on the deadliest psychiatric disorder. ''I'm surprised, tbh. I understand that a section above mentions that one was removed for being tasteless, but a picture of someone (preferably a girl, seeing as they suffer form the disorder more often than guys) with the disorder (not nude, but at least with arms and rib cage visible) would definitely improve the article''. MichaelExe (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree *Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Starvation has a picture of a starved man. Edgepedia (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

''No ideal but could be used. Not a huge fan however of using images that could have been the disease but are not''.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsflash for Ignoramuses

Pictures of anorexic girls "not nude, but at least with arms and rib cage visible" are called "triggers". It's harmful. when you see images that may trigger your desire to restrict calories. ... http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/anorexia/DS00606.html Ignorance from a layperson is one thing, from a doctor unexcusable Physician and a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Saskatchewan. Me, I have a ninth grade education that I obtained growing up as a ward of the state in Foster care, the last three years of my education were spent in 7 different schools. But I know the difference between "Etiology" and "Pathophysiology". This is what you missed in premed: Main Entry: eti·ol·o·gy 1 : cause, origin; specifically : the cause of a disease or abnormal condition 2 : a branch of knowledge concerned with causes; specifically : a branch of medical science concerned with the causes and origins of diseases Main Entry: patho·phys·i·ol·o·gy 1.:the physiology of abnormal states ; specifically : the functional changes that accompany a particular syndrome or disease i.e. "caused by". Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Etiology of ADHD. Etiology of ADHD: ADHD diagnosis and treatment is undergoing a major change because of new data on the genetics of ADHD and the use of new neuroimaging ... http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/495640_3
 * Doc James According to you, you are an Emergency room
 * From Medscape not Mikescape Attention-Deficit

LH, Tanner JL. Pediatrics. 2008 Feb;121(2):e358-65. disorder. Millichap JG. FRCP, Division of Neurology, Children's Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL 60614, USA. gmillichap@childrensmemorial.org as a result (i.e. caused by) of brain injury, infection etc. thus pathophysiology. biochemical basis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are briefly reviewed, and an etiologic
 * Etiology of ADHD: nature or nurture? Diller
 * Etiologic classification of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
 * , but acquired factors in etiology are sometimes uncovered...
 * symptoms similar to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder that followed brain trauma or viral encephalitis, and recent MRI studies have demonstrated brain volumetric changes that may be involved in the pathophysiology(i.e. caused by) of the syndrome. Elucidation for Doc James ;Some people develop ADHD traits
 * an overview of environmental factors in the etiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is presented to encourage more emphasis and research on organic causal factors,... 
 * genetic and
 * treatment of environmental etiologies of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder....

My writing is poor?

This is awesome case of English composition:

ADHD is the most commonly studied and diagnosed for children psychiatric disorder in children, affecting about 3 to 5% of children globally with symptoms starting before seven years of age.[4][5] ADHD is a common chronic disorder in children[6] WT* is that? And this is incredibly informative:

"diagnostic criteria for ADHD are based on extensive empirical research and, if applied appropriately, lead to the diagnosis of a syndrome with high interrater reliability, good face validity, and high predictability of course and medication responsiveness."[23] Laypersons read Wikipedia. "interrater reliability, good face validity, and high predictability" Who talks like that?

What's this supposed to mean? ADHD may be seen as one or more continuous traits found normally throughout the general population.[24]No link, no explanation nada, just a cut and paste sentence.

It is a health condition involving biologically active substances in the brain.[citation needed]

and some cases of adult ADHD, "biological active chemicals in the brain are in the state of equilibrium and disequilibrium.[citation needed]"

This explains what?

A diagnosis of ADHD does not, however, imply a neurological disease.[24][clarification needed]

I put the genes possibly associated with ADHD in a collapsible box. I didn't invent collapsible boxes they are called "wikitable collapsible" not "Mikitable collapsible" but this is much easier to read"

Your version:

Candidate genes include dopamine transporter, dopamine receptors D2/D3,[47] dopamine beta-hydroxylase monoamine oxidase A, catecholamine-methyl transferase, serotonin transporter promoter (SLC6A4), 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A receptor (5-HT2A), 5-hydroxytryptamine 1B receptor (5-HT1B),[48] the 10-repeat allele of the DAT1 gene,[49] the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene,[49] and the dopamine beta hydroxylase gene (DBH TaqI).[50]

My version:

Image deletion: this image: File:ADHD-DAT-300.jpg why? Whats your rationale? There is none, it just happens to show the that there a real physiological differences in the brains of people with ADHD. It adds to the context of the article.
 * You deleted

image that shows the developmental delays in the brain of a child with ADHD as opposed to a control.File:Adhd brain timelapse.jpg
 * You deleted an

image; File:Striatum small.gif. There is increased cerebral blood flow to the striatum. Cerebral blood flow is the correct way to describe it not ...ADHD to have reduced blood circulation (indicating low neural activity),...
 * You deleted an

image of a fetus File:Fetus amniotic sac.jpg, in a section that describes in utero complications. But big giant pictures of pills now that's important What's the rationale behind deleting this: Adrenoleukodystrophy:The earliest symptoms of the disorder in childhood can easily be mistaken for a number of other, much milder and much more common developmental and behavioral problems, such as attention deficit disorder (ADD/ADHD) or learning disabilities.[33] That's useless information?
 * You deleted an

I'm not looking for "attaboys" or "look at what I did" or childish Wiki Barnstars

To put it bluntly your article sucks, your writing is horrific, and in cases like the anorexia nervosa article you're numnutz opinions are blatantly harmful. You should stick to juggling balls and let the people with ninth grade educations write the medical articles. I'm not trying to play doctor by writing or contributing to medical articles. I just think it's a shame that people who actually do have the expertise don't have the altruism to do so. It's because there is nothing in it for them. And someone who allegedly has medical training writes useless harmful drivel. Wikipedia comes up in the first spot on most searches, some articles are great, alot are crap, like yours. I have most of the traits of ADHD the Pathophysiology of which, derived from an "anoxic brain injury" as an infant. I know the cause and effect of Iatrogenesis. One of the causes is callous indifferance, ignorance and plain stupidity. You "contributions" are a testament to that. '''P.S. Look on the Wikipedia Main Page, what's there? COLOR '''

Glad you're proud of this

When you get compared to a Nazi you know the discussion has reached it's pinnacle: "Dr. Josef Mingele no doubt would have strongly agreed with that statement." User:Ward3001 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC) [2]

''Here I am referred to as a sociopath by user:Faustian. "Given your pattern of sociopathic behavior I am not convinced of your honesty now.''"

7mike5000 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we

could take up your concerns one at a time? All the colorful boxes are not useful that was the main issue. Neither were all the hide / show buttons. We can start with this image if you want. First of all we do not have the study that this is from. Second it had no caption to go with it. Third a review states that the cause of ADHD is unknown. The image might be appropriate but we need further source information. I have requested further comments from WP:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not my "concerns" the article occupies the first spot on the search engines. It should at least be written in intelligible English. There is no need to ask anyone for comments there is this thing called a Google; simply put "Brookhaven Laboratory ADHD" into the Google search box and Wala; you get, Deficits in Brain's Reward System Observed in ADHD Patients. http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=998 2009 follow up: Deficits in Brain's Reward System Observed in ADHD PatientsSep 8, 2009 http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=

''All the colorful boxes are not useful that was the main issue. Neither were all the hide / show buttons'' Your opinion "the colorful boxes" Yeah, I got carried away with the "colors" not the "boxes". More information can be put into an article, the information can be condensed, it gives people a choice whether or not to read it, and making a page interactive makes it more interesting. The colors should have all been uniform like in the other articles I used them in, someone showed me a color tool and I got carried away, I can be as immature as anybody else. I think the article should be changed back without the garish colors, it had more useful information, was more concise and as the below mentioned comment exemplifies was better written. It's called Syntax. The Brady Bunch article has more information, is better written and has "tables". But nobody suffers from lack of Brady Bunch information. Ignorance about ADHD, they do.

It should be Majority rule I'm just a bookworm with a ninth grade education 7mike5000 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have asked

for further input from WP:MED. I do not have problems with some of the tables. They just need to be reformatted. Also I would think it would be best to leave many of them unhidden rather than having hide / show buttons.


 * Let add some

of the content back a peice at a time as its formating is improved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Thats fine lets also keep the debate here. Not on my talk page. It would be helpful if you reformatted your comments to pertain to improving the ADHD page rather than other pages (ie anorexia, skull fractures, etc. ) I do agree that the ADHD page does still need substantial work and can be improved.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:7mike5000"

You basically claimed I write like crap and tried to make a jackass out of me, on the internet, when I'm only looking to do the right thing; "improved writting (sic)style", "formating (sic) is just to poor". I included examples of my "writting (sic)style" and "formating (sic)" to prove otherwise. To reiterate: my interest in the medical articles is altruistic in nature not compliments or silly Barnstars. This article "Eating disorders" has been stable without the looney manic editing in the ADHD article, or that was in the Anorexia nervosa article. I can't even fathom what it's like to have an eating disorder. Having ADHD or ADHD like traits I know the damage it can cause. 7mike5000 (talk)


 * Thank you for

making a complete fool of me, everybody. Really. You made my day. I do not plagiarize. Do you even know the definition of plagiarism? It's copied WORD-FOR-WORD, not the same basic concept. And I was NOT calling that work my own! I gave credit to the Legends of America site!!!!! And I do NOT think I'm a dinosaur. The only reason I chose that name is because it's my favorite dinosaur. People like you (the people that insulted me) make me sick. The Utahraptor (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to direct you to

Wikipedia's definition of plagiarism. I quote, "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit. I feel I references the Peerless article well. And if you don't agree with me, I'll redo it. The Utahraptor (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Sarcastic criticism sucks doesn't it? I never had a mother, I grew up in foster homes, but if I did I would have liked to have had one that taught nice little adages like If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. The Ethic of Reciprocity goes both ways, Do unto others as they have done unto you. I didn't initiate, I just responded. I happen to prefer civility. 7mike5000 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You did in fact plagiarize, the reference in the Peerless, Utah article was added by User:LadyofShalott, here take a look; Don't sweat it everybody does it, I do, I like this so much "high interrater reliability, good face validity, and high predictability" that I want to create an article just so I could plagiarize it.
 * No,

I didn't plagiarize. I was just new at the time and didn't know about the reflist template. I did provide links, but instead of labeling them as references, due to the fact that I was new, I accidentally labeled them as external links rather than references. And to those who believe I write short articles, go look at Silver Reef. That is, by far, my best article. And for the record, I still have a lot of work to do on it. The Utahraptor (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I inquired about the decorative approach at MOS, and the responses can be read here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)