Talk:Oxytetracycline

Untitled
I was prescribed oxytetracycline 250mg 4 times per day to treat acne roseca. For me, a side effect was constipation, which is not one of the listed side effects. It could be because I am on other medication. When acne flared up again, I was prescribed Vibramicina 100mg once per day. This cleared the acne with no side effects. Is this oxytetracycline a right structure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongjong2 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

E number
I added citation needed to the newly added E number. User:DePiep reverted with the reason its sourced in E number, but it isnt (if it is; show me which reference) (and one WikiPedia article cant use another article as a reference - but I was reverted twice). Its not a current E number at least, and the list at E Number says: "The list shows all components that have or had an E-number assigned.". But I suspect it never have had an E number at all. Christian75 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * a. You reverted saying "there are no sources on the target page". I counted 24, and said so.
 * b. You did not claim that "Oxytetracycline is not E703", as you start doing here. You asked for source to be added, that is something different.
 * c. Instead of pissing backwards and spilling our energy, you could have made yourself a happy day by exploring & improving the situation. Page E number for example. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no source for E703 on on the target page (target = E number) (of course there is sources; but did you think I just said there isnt any sources, or did you think I thought there wasnt any sources about E703?), and one person at talk:E number thinks E7xx doesnt exist too. EU doesnt list E 7XX as E numbers. And I added the cn because I thought it was dubious that oxytetracycline has an E number at all. Do you have any sources since you reverted the citation needed tag? I cant add a source because I cant find one - therefore I added cn. Add a reference or readd the cn again Christian75 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just improve the pages, instead of tagging & sweating issues. Whatever you found, you can use that on E number page right? I'm bizzy elsaewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But thats mean I have to remove the E numner again, agree? (With cn is a way to say "I disagree; but prove me wrong") Christian75 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are into this detail more than I am, by now. Of course we all want the two articles to be OK. And together as a pair. So if you find this thing can be improved somewhere: do so. I'd say: improve some source link. That is always better than tagging with a 'cn'. Feels better too, imo. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)