Talk:Viloxazine

Header
This is an excellent article on the compound and should be a model for other wikipedia articles relating to pharmacology.

---Aidan Smoker UCD Dublin
 * You're kidding, right? I haven't even added a "Metabolism" section, or explained what the significance of anything was in the "Mechanism of Action" section, especially that last sentence (You see, this Lloyd KG person believed that antidepressants worked through GABA (see for details)). However, I would like to see separate sections for Off- and On-Label use become commonplace.--Rmky87 06:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot: I write incredibly skimpy leads.--Rmky87 06:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)aidan 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your laudable use of referencing. Your article on Viloxazine has 21 refs. as opposed to, for example, ~3 for Venlaflaxine. In my mind referencing is EXTREMELY important on a project such as Wikipedia. Graciously take a compliment.

Aidan


 * Oh.--Rmky87 02:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Viloxazine is not a bicyclic compound.
In order to be classified as a polycyclic (in this case, bicyclic) compound, the molecule should contain two or more rings fused; the fact, that the molecule consist of one substitued benzene ring and one morpholine heterocylcic ring, linked by an aliphatic/etheric chain, does not mean it's bicyclic. Bicyclic would be, of antidepressant drugs the substances nomifensine or sertraline, for example. Violoxazine could be decribed as a heterocyclic compound, if one wants to be specific on its chemistry.--Spiperon 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC) You can put it up for CfD, then. Suffice it to say that I was young and stupid.--Rmky87 18:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither do I think this article should be deleted, nor that you was stupid; a non-(organic)-chemist can easily confuse polycyclism because of the overall number of rings in the molecule; I suggest simply to change its description from bicyclic to heterocyclic.--Spiperon 01:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just did just that - corrected the references. Hopefully we can add even more corrections and new data to make this an even better article.--StinkorNinjor 19:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.15.212 (talk)

The chemical structure of Viloxazine is incorrect: the oxygen and the methylene group have to be switched (there is no acetal in Viloxazine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.84.231 (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you absolutely CERTAIN? Because I double-checked this patent, and the molecular structure of the stereoisomers looks the same as in this Wiki.

http://www.google.com/patents/EP2558437A2?cl=en --StinkorNinjor 19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.15.212 (talk)

Viloxazine
This is not approved for use in the US.

Viloxazine Approval
This is not approved for use in Ireland. It has lost its approval in 1989 (see Irish Medicines Board web site) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.30.32 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference broken
This ref is broken, not sure how to fix as this article uses a different referencing syntax than in other wiki articles:

In a cross-over trial (56 participants) viloxazine significantly reduced EDS and cataplexy. {ref Vignatelli L, D'Alessandro R, Candelise L. Antidepressant drugs for narcolepsy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD003724. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003724.pub3}

Bstard12 (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have corrected this reference according to the reference-system used in the article. Just double-checked, and it works now. --StinkorNinjor 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC+1)

properly referenced synthetic routes - BRD violation
I did this revert. As I explained in my edit summary, done per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nuklear/Archive&diff=635813694&oldid=628829594 by User:Meodipt.

The deletion seems unconstructive, so I made that revert. The response (another revert) seems to be a BRD/EW violation. The addition seems to just "add properly referenced synthetic routes" to Viloxazine, which is why I reverted it -- after confirming verifiability -- even if it was content added by a sock, it is worth keeping. We're here to build an encyclopedia, right? I ask that my revert be reinstated, as there's been no (non edit-summary) discussion other than this post. --Elvey(t•c) 19:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog needs to come to the talk page instead of edit warring yet again, this time deleting content added by administrator User:Edgar181 and I, misrepresenting it as merely that of a blocked user.--Elvey(t•c) 05:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Elvey, you followed me here as part of your ventures into WP:HOUNDING, about which I have now warned you twice. Your revert that you link to above, cited an irrelevant comment at one of the many SPI investigations about Nuklear, and if you actually read that series of whole SPI cases you see that b/c Nuklear is IP-hopping, there is no way we can fully block him, even though he continues to disrupt Wikipedia the same way that led to his original blocks.   Secondly the material you restored was not even accurate, and had to be corrected by Edgar in this dif.  So not only are you just waging war, but you didn't even look carefully at the content you restored; since you don't edit chemical matters much, it is not even clear that you were competent to restore that material.  Thirdly there is private information that Nuklear has disclosed via email that makes it clear that his WP editing is not healthy; you are arguably harming him by having randomly selected his edit to include in your disruptive behavior.   As I have said to you twice before, if you don't like me, then don't pursue me.  This is your final warning on the hounding thing.  Wikipedia is not a BATTLEGROUND, as Liz recently warned you on your Talk page about other things you have been doing. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, Elvey, I didn't add the content, just made a correction to an inconsistency in it. In general, I do not think that there is consensus to include information about drug synthesis in drug articles.  It is highly technical and probably of little use to nearly all readers.  One editor, Nuklear (as multiple socks and IPs), has been essentially the only editor to add this type of content.  These additions have been consistently problematic for a variety of reasons - originally most were blatant copyright violations.  Currently, most of these additions are problematic for other reasons: they are highly prone to errors, they are poorly written, they describe outdated/unused methods, etc.  Even though I sometimes try to just correct the content where I see obvious errors, I have no objection when editors such as Jytdog summarily revert these additions.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * elvey has apparently given up on this, per this Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

refs
The refs are messed up in this article - the numbering doesn't reflect the reference that the hyperlink sends you to, when you click it. This is not good, as print versions are incorrect. I don't usually do this, but I am going to change the reference style to the more traditional in-line format to fix this. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat saddened to hear this, as I just corrected one of the erroneous links, using the same format as the original OP used. I just wasted my time, didn't I...? Oh well, your job will be slightly, slightly easier now, at least. --StinkorNinjor 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC+1)

Side effect section is mostly uncited and a little frightening.
Some other drug pages rank side effects by frequency, which helps put this disturbing information in context. Otherwise it becomes sensationalized quickly.

I'll see if I can find this. 2603:7081:1603:A300:206A:BF81:3988:D64C (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The side effects were for the most part unsourced. I have attempted to resolve this by listing the source-able side effects, indicating frequency when possible, removing false claims (e.g., sources show no EKG anomalies, despite the (unsourced) claim in this article), and removing the rest of the unsourced claims. I attempted to find sources for every one of the side effects that I removed, and was unable to find anything supporting any of them. Kimen8 (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)