User:Fuzzform/Archive2007

Antidepressant template refactoring
Hi,

I've written about the need for refactoring of the antidepressant template on its talk page, and would like to collaborate with you on this. As I understand it, you agree that it should be split into a two-level template, presumably with the categories (SSRI, SNRI, NARI, MAOI, etc.) on one level, and the drugs themselves on another level (citalopram, venlafaxine, reboxetine, selegiline, etc.).

How do we proceed?

It appears there is very limited interest in the template, so I don't think there will be any objections to refactoring it. I would propose making some subpages of your ProjectAntidep page with the revised templates, migrating the drugs currently included in the template, proposing a change on the talk page of the current template, and performing the change after a bit of time if there are no objections. To split the work, if necessary, we can go by category.

Replies to my talk page would be appreciated.

Zuiram 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply.
 * As for using ATC codes, I think the main issue is that some drugs have multiple modes of action. For instance, tranylcypromine is a MAO-inhibitor at lower doses, yet one of its metabolites has unselective monoamine reuptake inhibiting properties, and this effect dominates at higher doses. Most sources would classify it as being from the MAOI class, and mose readers would expect to find it there, although there are other classifications that might make sense. Similarly, phenelzine has GABA-T-inhibitor properties that appear partially responsible for its anxiolytic properties.
 * We could either classify these things according to ATC, which makes some sense, or according to the demonstrated main mode of action, if we're going for single-category classification. There is an argument to be made for dual classification, but ATC seems reasonably clean.
 * Where would we stick e.g. St. John's Wort? ;)
 * Zuiram 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Humourous Mitt Romney source is not citable as fact.
Your addition on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 via these edits is based on a humour piece, from the op ed page of the Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/07/you_gotta_have_faith_mitt/. It's not citable factual source. Someone else already removed the contribution. -- Yellowdesk 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is this supposed to mean?
"The relative potency at average dose levels for antipyrine clearance was PB (1), DPH (0.92), CBZ (0.84), PMD (0.82) and for log D-GA excretion was PB (1), CBZ (0.96), PMD (0.95), DPH (0.90)." (fulltext). They said that it's pretty much equal at equipotent doses, but...argh!--Rmky87 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it now.--Rmky87 18:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They were measuring D-glucaric acid execretion because that is one thing that changes when hepatic enzymes are induced. The PDF is free because the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology decided to have a "Citation classics" issue. There are some medical uses for it, apparently.--Rmky87 00:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It took me a while to figure that one out, too! At first, I thought it was some kind of metabolite of antipyrine.--Rmky87 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Date Rape Drug
Hi, Thanks for the edits on date rape drug. I had one concern about you changing "Hysteria" to "Moral Panic". While a moral panic can have elements of a mass hysteria, this section is only documenting hysteria reactions, i.e. the false symptoms. While I agree date rape drugs were a sort of moral panic too, I think unless this section is expanded to document more than just hysterical symptoms, we should probably keep calling it hysteria.

Do you have any ideas of citations on the moral panic of Date Rape drugs? Maybe something from the lycaeum could help. Gigs 01:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the moral panic. As for your research, I can tell you GHB was extremely popular in the US before it was illegal, and shortly thereafter.  It's popularity has fallen very sharply after Pelchat labs was shut down and the precursors became much harder to get.  It's just not a compelling enough drug for the risk involved in getting the precursors now.  It was mainly a scene drug, associated with rave culture.  I don't think your edit was POV, I just think that if we are going to call that section moral panic, we need more information about the moral panic (citations, not just our personal experiences). Gigs 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia != myspace
You're not the only one who is concerned about Wikipedia becoming myspacelite. An informal cabal of editors, of which I am a member, go through the userspace looking for myspace and spam pages. A good place to start looking for these things is Template:Spamsearch. I find a zero tolerance approach works best.

Being on new page patrol is the best way to spot myspacery in the main namespace.

You might want to read MySpace. MER-C 13:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Miscellany for deletion is the way to go in this case. MER-C 11:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I already have some some boilerplate text for user pages. MER-C 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:PHARM assessments
Hey Fuzzform. I noticed your recent assessments of several articles for WP:PHARM—nice work! However, you tagged several articles (such as nicotine and methamphetamine) as GA-class even though they did not go through the Good article nomination process; I'm afraid articles can only be rated as GA-class once they've gone through this process, so I'll have to bump them down to B-class. If you think they're ready for GA, feel free to nominate them, though :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Drop me a line if I'm mistaken here (i.e. they'd been nominated and you just passed them). Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lorazepam DOJ.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lorazepam DOJ.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:


 * Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.


 * The WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.


 * Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.


 * Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!


 * Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.


 * Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.


 * Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.


 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template talkheader may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.


 * There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re
Anytime. If it happens again, just report them at WP:AIV—in my humble opinion, this is the best course of action for this kind of thing. I've move-protected your userpage, by the way. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppets
I can assure you I am not a sockpuppet of User:driski555 but I will tell you there are four of us —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-abulous (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13riski is not a sockpuppet because I am not using that account to benefit the other. The 13riski account is an alternate account which I barely ever use. &quot;It will randomly work out&quot; 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you have multiple accounts and you use one of them to harass me occasionally? Well then, by all means... create more accounts; see where it gets you. Fuzzform 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why
wh d y stt tht m sr pg s blg whn thr sn't nythng n thr tht s blg lk? m nt bng mn, jst wnt rsn wh. &quot;GET SOME&quot; 19:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Disemvoweled. Fuzzform 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

French primidone article
I speak of course of this. There are a precious few places that have it. Do you have any access whatsoever? Do you know anyone who does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmky87 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you SO much!--Rmky87 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My approach to history section of the primidone article
What do you think?--Rmky87 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The original idea was to fill out the gaps where I didn't have any information concerning the drug. Then I realized that it was sometimes easier to speak in terms of other drugs than of primidone. I'm not doing any trimming until I have everything that I need, which includes a glossary from Epilepsia. I want to know where primidone was popular and no, you do not need to get that for me. I can probably get it myself this weekend. I think I also need to write more about phenobarbital, or else people are going to think that primidone is just too old which isn't true. I think it's a combination of age plus never being as popular as phenobarbital or phenytoin. What I really want to know is how two different companies introduced a new drug at the same time.--Rmky87 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese primidone article
It's here. Do you happen to know someone who speaks/reads Chinese? I thought I could find this myself but nooooooo, the stupid database had to lie to me. By the way, I love the way you just said you'd do it without asking anything in return.--Rmky87 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to know that 長QT症 is Chinese for Long QT syndrome. You know, I don't think I would have understood everything either. I just want to know if it was actually used to treat Long QT, unlike the Greek case, where it merely masked the symptoms of something else.--Rmky87 12:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

More stuff for you to get
,, and. That should do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmky87 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:


 * The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.


 * The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.


 * Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.


 * Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.


 * Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I send you an email?
I can't find the thing that does that.--Rmky87 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lower left of what?--Rmky87 22:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind.--Rmky87 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering me anyway.--Rmky87 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any double-blind studies of primidone that aren't comparison trials
This occurred to me while I was reading the Bupropion article, specifically the depression subsection. I noticed that they made broad statements about the existing literature, that they could say that its efficacy has been validated in RCT after RCT, and started wondering if maybe I should go looking for those things and ditch the open-label trials in the epilepsy section. I went to PubMed, clicked on "Limits", checked off "Randomized Controlled Trials", and got two pages of results that were obviously not suitable for our purposes. Was it really possible to get something approved for use in the United Kingdom without double-blind placebo-controlled trials being performed first?

In other news, I have learned that I can Xerox those articles from Archie Dykes instead of taking notes by hand. I don't have to wonder if I missed something important.--Rmky87 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Denis Williams 1956
Is it just me, or does every single trial in this article smell open-label to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmky87 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of citing this instead of a whole bunch of open-label trials. You see, I'm not sure that we are ever going to find any rigorous trials of primidone published before 1965. I was thinking along the lines of "Open-label clinical trials"&mdash;these were apparently considered to be clinical trials&mdash;conducted in the early to mid-1950s suggested that primidone was an effective treatment for grand mal seizures, useless for petit mal seizures, and sometimes useful for psychomotor seizures.#" Maybe that should be, "case series published in the early to mid-1950s". That thing on the talk page that had 486 subjects might be double-blind study but I could easily be wrong. Good God, pharmaceutical regulatory agencies were so stupid in 1950s.


 * By the way, the person who verified that my Xerox idea was workable also said that the history section hit the high points. This was someone who probably knew nothing about the anticonvulsants.--Rmky87 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Amobarbital.svg
Hi Fuzzform. Can you please move this structural formula to the Commons? It should be used in the WPs other than English. Thanks. --Leyo (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done by someone else wright now. I always prefer if the original creator does the move. That's why I did not do it by myself. --Leyo (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Isopropamide
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Isopropamide, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Isopropamide
A tag has been placed on Isopropamide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --EoL talk 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably should have said that in the talk page before removing the tag (it tells instructions on how to explain). --EoL talk 02:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You removed the coren search bot tag without explaining. --EoL talk 02:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. --Core desat 02:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "If CorenSearchBot is in error: Simply note so on this article's discussion page." (Csb-pageincludes) --EoL talk 02:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many other articles have been deleted on similar grounds? I used to see myself as leaning toward the doctrine of deletionism, but I now see how flawed it is. Wholesale deletion of an article is not justified when the article is about something that is noteworthy. Even if the material is word-for-word copied from a copyrighted site, it can be rewritten; the information can still be used, when paraphrased. Perhaps removing the copyrighted section would be more appropriate? Or perhaps checking the supposedly copyrighted site would be in order? Perhaps one should be skeptical of computer programs (even those which are supposedly programmed for every possible contingency)? Deleting the entire article without checking up on the details of the situation is an irresponsible behavior. Also... how on earth could the basic information contained in the drugbox be copyrighted? Those are absolute facts, and are not subject to copyright; one cannot copyright the data regarding the molecular mass of a compound. This deletionism is out of control. It is incredibly irritating to have to provide such a lengthy explaination to remedy a bureaucratic mistake, after I had already gone out of my way to fix up an article. Fuzzform (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you did not move the article. You just made copy/paste (see Help:Moving a page). That's in fact a copyvio: It's not visible that other users have worked on the article Isopropamide iodide before. --Leyo 12:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that information contributed to Wikipedia that is solely the work of individuals contributing to the encyclopedia (i.e., not copyrighted information lifted from somewhere else) is not copyrighted. (In other words, a user's contributions are not copyrighted, so long as they didn't copy it from a copyrighted source.) Giving credit for work a user has done is one thing, copyrighting one's work is entirely another. I understand that it isn't fair that other users' contributions were not properly attributed when I moved the article - this was ignorance of procedure on my part. Wikipedia isn't about getting credit for one's contributions; it's about providing free information for everyone - information that isn't copyrighted. This is why other sites will lift information from Wikipedia (which is what happened in this case. (N.B.: It would have been simpler to just rename the page, but I don't have that ability, since I'm not an administrator.) The bottom line is, bona-fide, original contributions to Wikipedia are not copyrighted by the users who made the contribution; hence the subtitle of Wikipedia: "the free encyclopedia". Fuzzform (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)