User talk:Nmg20/Archive 2

C/EBP
Hi. I'm a member of the WikiProject Wikify, and in reviewing articles to wikify, I ran across C/EBP. I believe this article's subject may be a duplicate of Ccaat-enhancer-binding proteins which redirects to CCAAT box. I looked up your name as a member of WikiProject Preclinical Medicine who might be more knowledgeable or have subject matter expertise and be able to assist in determining what to do with the C/EBP article and its contents. Thanks. -- Whpq 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stupid?
I'd be careful calling people "stupid". Could be percieved as a personal attack. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

69.141.30.12 attack on passive smoking
I think we should put a stop at the repeated attempts of 69.141.30.12 (probably also BlowingSmoke and Moderation) to remove the reference to causality from the summary of the Passive smoking article. As you certainly know, the notion of causality is central to the issue of passive smoking - this is the very point on which the denial policy of the tobacco industry has concentrated over the last 30 years. Removing it from the summary of the article is to amputate it of a key concept. 69.141.30.12 edits are not backed by any reference, they do not reflect the consensus of the editors. But he/she keeps coming back with his change, always the same, in spite of the fact that he/she was reverted by several different editors. If you want to start a conflict resolution procedure, I will follow you. Dessources 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up to my message above, I'd like to draw your attention to the request I have submitted concerning a suspected sock puppeteer activity by BlowingSmoke and the violation of the 3RR rule. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke. --Dessources 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Check user procedure
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr talk 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

AcetylcholineAgonist = BlowingSmoke
I agree with you that AcetylcholineAgonist is clearly another manifestation of old BlowingSmoke. I did not expect BlowingSmoke to easily give up his attempts to disrupt the Passive smoking article. However, as his main name is now fairly discredited by his proven abuse of sock puppetry, it is no surprise that he would come back under a new name. Interestingly, AcetylcholineAgonist, alias BlowingSmoke, has now opted for a highly dynamic IP address (196.25.255.246), with probably the hope that this will make it more difficult for the Wikipedia administrators to detect his eventual future use of sock puppetry, and thus will avoid him being caught as he was the first time. Indeed, AcetylcholineAgonist has indicated, shortly before registering, that his IP "is one of the most dynamic I've seen". It is also interesting to note that an identical edit (insertion of NPOV) as done by AcetylcholineAgonist, with IP 196.25.255.246, was done by user 41.243.210.79 (See ). It appears that both 196.25.255.246 and 41.243.210.79 are IP addresses belonging to TelKom South Africa, showing indeed the highly dynamic character of the IP addresses obtained via this ISP.

The method used by this user seems to keep coming back with the same highly biased remarks and edits, to flood the discussion with the same blatantly bad faith contributions, which are totally unsensitive and unresponsive to the remarks of the other editors, and to stage what appears to be a war of attrition. Predictably, he will pursue this war in the hope that the other editors of this article will get so fed up in the end that they will throw the towel and give up. However, although BlowingSmoke's, alias AcetylcholineAgonist's, attempts may temporarily succeed in at least one aspect, i.e. in wasting everybody's time (including his own time) and distracting the editors' energy away from improving the article, I am confident that this type of brute force stratagem will flatly fail. On Wikipedia, it seems that, no matter what, good faith always manages to prevail in the long run.

--Dessources 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent checkuser request
You recently submitted a request for checkuser. A clerk has moved your request to Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant temporarily; this does not mean the request has necessarily been accepted or rejected, as clerks are generally concerned with maintenance and upkeep, not making decisions on the merit of any given request. Please , and then follow the instructions in the box at the top of Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant. Thank you for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr talk 09:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk

User:69.141.30.12's conduct reported to the Administrator's noticeboard
I have filed an incident entry to report harassment by User:69.141.30.12, alias BlowingSmoke. See . You may perhaps wish to also add there some comments of yours. --Dessources 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shortly after I posted my report on User:69.141.30.12, he has posted a lengthy comment making all kinds of accusations, claiming in particular that you are my meat puppet (see ).
 * --Dessources 06:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to your work on the ECT article
Your wide breadth of knowledge, internet social skills, and restrained, patient, but determined leadership in the highly controversial electroconvulsive therapy article, is a very clear asset to Wikipedia and society.--scuro 15:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Passive smoking mediation
Hey, I wasn't going to bug you since it sounds like you're quite busy, but if you're interested, there will likely be a mediation case regarding the recent influx of controversy at passive smoking. You'd be welcome to join, as you've been quite active on the article, if you're interested. The case is here: Requests for mediation/Passive smoking. I think a brief glance at the article talk page would give you a flavor of what the dispute is about. MastCell Talk 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Electroshock
Hi. Probably, I disagree with you about electroshock, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate your involvement with the article. You've been polite to me and you seem to know some relevant facts. That article seems to be in turmoil right now, but it's always been in some level of dispute. Your presence seems to help. Thanks for your influence. Take care. Chris Dubey 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

User:naacats
If this guy keeps causing trouble, any chance that going to WP:COIN or WP:UAA would be a productive way of dealing with him, given that he is obviously the same guy that's responsible for this? Yilloslime (t) 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
... good to see you (somewhat) active again. I see we have yet another single-purpose account dedicated to minimizing the harms of passive smoking. MastCell Talk 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To be precise
On the tobacco smoking issue and the drug-link-theory (a note outside the scope of the article). Just so that you know. I don't know about people there before, therefore I cannot judge what their intentions and expertise were when they waved "correlation is not causation". But just to be clear, in and by itslef it is a fundamental precept of anything that wants to be in any way scientific. If Science had only looked for correlations as sure causations and not for genuine causations we would be in a Middle-Ages-like world (like, I always take aspirin with water so water must cure me). One thing for example is correlation in lung cancer, where no social theme can play any role at any time, plus we are talking gigantic correlations. Another one is the gateway theory where you do have cofactors and the correlations are weaker too. Even if it's true, it's on a different level for now. Only if you're able to wash out all other correlations and still make the link then that'd be proof. But if, for example, for you they've got the same validity, then that I'd see as a problem, because I'd question the breadth of your critical analysy. --Gibbzmann 08:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Let me be open about this. I only care, when it comes to Science, numbers and research, that the views are presented in a way that is both correct and understandable. Whatever my personal view, I'd always privilege a position however uncomfortable, if supported by the data, and I have no other scope if I'm editing or discussing. But in cases as this one that regards the lives of people, I'm even more preoccupied that the data are presented correctly, because being informed about the scietntific truths and to inform the public and the institutions is always the best way to reduce the damage. Two examples. Let's say the gatweay theory is true, fine, all is working fine. But let's say it turns out to be incorrect. Does that cause a damage? Yes, an equal big one as if it's true and not considered. Because if for example the institutions concentrate all their efforts on fighting marjiuana before anything else for prevention, and it turns out that there's an unknown common cause undetected and left unaltered by that intervention, the result would be a disaster. On a different level, let's say someone instead becomes convinced that because he never smoked a cigarete once that he is immune of any risk about any drug. And he bases this feeling on the conviction deducted from Wikipedia that only tobacco smokers, more or less, ever try drugs. That'd be also a damage, because he has to stay equally alert about the risks, whether he smokes or not (in fact if a smoker has any advantage, it would be to know how true is the statement that nobody should trust his will to quit anytime he wants, a trap for many complete novices). --Gibbzmann 07:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Clinmed
Hey Nick, good to see you are still around and doing some very important work. How are you keeping? I'd appreciate your input at WT:CLINMED with regards to the future of the medical collaborations. JFW | T@lk  00:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Chido6d
... ignore him. He's exhausted any vestigial credibility that he may have had, and forfeited the right to be engaged in discussion. Perhaps at some point he'll figure out that this is a collaborative project and improve his behavior to the point that it's worthwhile to once again interact with him. But right now, he's failed to force his agenda into the article, and he's left being obstructive and trying to push our buttons. He's best ignored, at least until he shows some signs of shaping up. Tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven editors have certainly been banned from articles/talk pages for far less than he's engaged in, but it's probably not worth the effort. MastCell Talk 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco and health
pointed out that the above article is quite biased. Given your experience on the passive smoking front, would you be available to help out a bit? JFW | T@lk  15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

HGH Controversies
Coverage of the same topic exists in both articles, and the HGH Controversies article is tiny and does not do a very good job of illuminating the issues. I think the redirect is warranted, personally. I'll alert User:Uncle G. He has an interest in these things, maybe he'll clean it up and fix it. Avruch Talk 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Header
Please take a close look at this edit of yours again. You have re-bolded the link to Second-hand Smoke (album), which I changed to Second-hand Smoke to avoid a redirect. The band is not being disambiguated to so it should not be linked. That and the period at the end is standard formatting for headers. I'm not sure what your issue is here. shoeofdeath (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

More smoking
User:TeamWinter and myself are in a dispute over an addition to Smoking. Considering your medical expertise when it comes to smoking, do you think you could comment the issue over Talk:Smoking?

Peter Isotalo 10:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in and checking the articles for some facts. I'm a somewhat puzzled about some of the fact tags you inserted though. You placed one after the claim that "Smoking is one of the most common forms of recreational drug use." and another one after "Some of the substances are classified as hard narcotics, like heroin and crack cocaine, but the use of these is usually limited to socially marginalized groups." The first one is pretty much common knowledge and is strongly supported by the fact that over one billion people are smokers (which is referenced in the article itself) and the second seems to me like a very uncontroversial statement. Considering the lead doesn't go into much detail and introduce much in the form of far-fetched conclusions, don't you think it's reasonable to let these slide instead of introducing reference padding?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

''Hi,

''I take your point, quite agree that it's one of the most common forms of recreational drug use, and by no means should the info be removed if it can't be sourced. However, do you not think the article would benefit from a link to something with hard numbers in, so that someone wanting to know e.g. how much more common than other forms it is could find that data?''

''On the harder drugs, I'm not sure that heroin and crack cocaine use is "usually limited to socially marginalised groups" - indeed, I'm not completely sure what is meant by it, e.g. how are they marginalised? Intuitively it might be more correct to say that a large number of heroin/crack users become socially marginalised by their drug use, but that's not quite the same thing. My issue here was a cause-and-effect one.

''More generally, was that the sort of contribution you were after? Nmg20 (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

''The above post was moved from User talk:Peter Isotalo by Peter Isotalo 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for. :-) I see your point about cause and affect. Do you think you could have a stab at changing the bit on hard narcotics so it doesn't appear quite as vague or speculative?
 * I don't know of any concrete figures on other forms of recreational drug use, but I've put it up as a task on the to do-list. It would make a good addition, so I'll see what I can do about finding some figures.
 * I've never quite been a fan of references in the lead, but your additions of references concerning various diseases linked to smoking were good. I'm going to incorporate them under "Physiology". If you have references for some of the other ailments caused by smoking, please add them to the article or mention them on the talkpage. That section and "Social effects" are bound to be those most vulnerable to corruption by pro-smoking activists and random fact relativists.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The royal "we"
As The Dude said, I think he must have been using the royal "we". Of course, someone needs to speak for the forgotten and disenfranchised... MastCell Talk 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Epilepsy
The article is a mess and needs to be largely revised. I had planned to do this jointly with User:Awadewit but we're both a bit busy at the moment. BTW: The use of epileptic as a noun is widely regarded as unsuitable. See WP:MEDMOS. Colin°Talk 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

YSL and ECT
Welcome. I didn't know that another wiki page couldn't be used as a reference, so that's good you called it to my attention.--Nhgaudreau (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV reports
Hi there! Just dropping a note about reporting users to WP:AIV. While the community isn't really decided, my personal advice would be not to drop messages like this on vandal talk pages. Generally, this leads them to overload on beans and try to do as much damage as they can before blocked. Of course, you don't have to stop; your choice. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Electroshock
Hi, Nmg20. Well, we are having the same dispute about ECT. However, I thank you for being civil.

It is time now that I let you know what my motive is in editing the article. I already told this to Scuro. Here goes...

My experience is that a friend of mine received over 10 involuntary electroshocks at a public hospital in 2006. She was twenty something. She told the staff that after only the first shock, it felt like rape. Her side effects included amnesia, a headache, and a jawache. She forgot the names of some of the staff. However, they continued to shock her, as if stupefying her would make her happy or as if control of her behavior was most important. At one point, she tried to stop the next shock by eating before the shock, because it is unsafe to have swallowed food before the sedation. The staff watched her swallow part of a napkin. They shocked her anyway. Afterward, she was taken to the emergency room because her breathing was abnormal. Being smart, she finally manipulated the confirmation bias of the staff, pretended to get happier, even though she felt assaulted, and they let her go. Now she has posttraumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the treatment.

...

That story might seem sensational, but it is true. And the victim is now starting to report the case to the local police. She is going to charge the electroshockers with medical malpractice, physical abuse, assault and battery, and rape. Although this was an unconventional rape and it happened 2 years ago, she has quite a bit of evidence and witnesses to call upon. It is only a matter of time before she formally presses charges. She also has a legal team to help her.

The major hospital in my area continues to perform involuntary electroshock. A lawyer, a social worker, and a psychiatrist have told me that it occurs often. The lawyer told me most of the victims are elderly women.

I know ECT can help some people, but I think it should be the patient's choice. The continuance of involuntary electroshock here in the United States and abroad is unacceptable to me. I know voluntary electroshock can have some benefits and I approve of voluntary electroshock. But involuntary electroshock has so many risks...nocebo effect, posttraumatic stress disorder, destruction of a patient's trust in medical workers...perhaps it even motivates some patients to react with violence. I am doing all I can to stop involuntary electroshock.

Electroshock is not the only option for suicidal people, either. I also have a friend who had a severe psychosis and almost died. She recovered through voluntary talk therapy with a trustworthy therapist and without psychotropics.

So this is why I feel it is important to note every detriment of electroshock in the article. People need to know the risks, both patients and caretakers.

So that is where I am coming from. Chris Dubey (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC).

Placement of reference tags
Thank you for adding references to Dysmenorrhea in this edit. Please note that according to WP:REF, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it." Please be sure to place your ref tags after punctuation in articles where that style is used, as is the case with Dysmenorrhea. Thank you. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of "refimprove" template
When you removed the "refimprove" template, perhaps you did not notice that there were many unsourced statements in the article and section. A lack of citation request tags does not mean that the article is sufficiently sourced. Often the template is placed specifically because there are so many unsourced statements that placing individual tags would make the article difficult to read. I had originally placed many such tags, but another editor deemed that a template would be better; see this edit. Your edit removed the banner that replaced those tags. In the future, please take care to determine whether the article or section is actually sourced before removing cite-request templates. Thank you. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

David Sullivan
Hi. I've reverted your edit to David Sullivan, and out of courtesy I should tell you why. The Guardian aren't claiming anything; their columnist, Marina Hyde, is using the Cilla Black business as a pretty illustration of the main point of her piece - that Sullivan's hypocritical over-sensitivity, as exemplified by him throwing a hissy fit when Ms Black's husband turned him down, is worthy of ridicule. IMO, your sentence is misleading about both the newspaper and Sullivan, and the large heading Impropriety above a misleading interpretation of Ms Hyde's column is decidedly iffy under WP:BLP. Maybe reliable sources can be found for questioning Sullivan's business practices, but I don't honestly think this is one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't think many would argue with your character assessment. Thanks for the welcome; I fully expect division 2 to be more fun than the previous season has been. Have to be flippin miserable to be less fun :-( cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk
You're such a cynic. Sure, the pharmaceutical-industrial complex wants you to think that breathing exercises can't cure cancer, but Wikipedia is here to set those "doctors" and their "facts" straight. Isn't it? MastCell Talk 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NHS "Paying Twice"
I'm not sure about your (26 February 2008) Private Healthcare vs Private Education comparison. For Healthcare there's significant overlap of provision (most patients with five star private packages still use GPs and emergency services) and if they abandon private cover when they retire they may be paying little/no tax to cover the cost of NHS care they now rely on. Surely the situation with Private Education is completely different: in any one year a student is either going to be 100% in publicly funded education or in private (can't be in two places at once). So paying twice for Healthcare is inevitable becuase there's no way to apportion lifetime use of the NHS, but paying twice for education could (politics aside) be fixed pretty easily and accurately, e.g. with vouchers. I've experimented with offline edits to improve the paragraph, but couldn't avoid WP:OR. How would you feel about simply deleting the comparison with Private Education? - Pointillist (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Looking more closely I see that your change | here was just running the two paras together. Sorry about that and thanks for getting involved anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco and health
Hi Nmg20! Thanks for catching my mistake on the Tobacco and health article. Have a great day! WriterHound (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Polyclinics
I edited this to say that the concept of a polyclinic is not that far from that of the health centre. You deleted it. When I was a kid, my local health centre used to hold a number of specialist clinics with various health care workers for example opthalmology, dentistry, minor injuries nursing, and a certain degree of specialist equipment to support these activities. Some GPs were also co-located there (my own was not one of them). I have no idea if they were directly employed GPs or just rented space there. Anyhow, I am not so sure why you think that the polyclinic concept is so very far from that of the general health centre. You seem to acknowledge this (your comment "I know where you are coming from") ... but you still thought it ok to delete my text. It seems to me that the main reason for opposition for polyclinics is that it potentially threatens the independent GP which has done rather well out of recent health care reforms. In heavily populated areas such as London the polyclinic is likely to be a very good one-stop-shop for heallth care, and its not more than a beefed up health centre. Can you expand on your reasons for deleting the text which says that it is? --Tom (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Polyclinics in England
Please try to keep the polyclinic article neutral - you obviously have strong opinions on this. A polyclinic is NOT a large building that GPs have been forced to move to! That's the extreme example that the BMA's propaganda puts out. At its simplest, Darzi's concept was a network of existing GPs with no changes in premises. I've reverted to my more neutral amendments. I'll be adding additional citations of articles in favour of polyclincs from the Guardian, Independent et al to balance out the article a little more in due course. Millstream3 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Your claim that Darzi's concept 'at its simplest' was just some vague networking of existing services is not correct - the putative advantages polyclinics offer hinge on their providing a more extensive range of services in one place than existing practices."

That simply isn't true. Have you even read 'A Framework for Action'?!

Very happy for the other authors to decide. Please leave my additions in for the moment. Millstream3 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)



Hi Nmg20, what do you make of this article: Tories claim surgeries near polyclinics will lose one in four patients?

"Conservative health spokesman Andrew Lansley said: 'Family doctors and their patients are rightly worried at this onslaught. If local GP surgeries lose up to a quarter of their patients in many cases they will no longer be financially viable. That means patients will have to travel further and will lose the relationship they have with the family doctors they know and trust.'"

Surely this is doublespeak? One can't argue that people don't want polyclinics, and then say that as soon as they are available 25% of people will want to sign up with one for a convenience - even if it means changing GP. This implies that there is a "market" for them. I think the Tories are losing the sense of their argument! Millstream3 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) - Conservatives have now withdrawn the statement Millstream3 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More stuff around this here: Super surgery fears remain intense Millstream3 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)



Here's another one: LMC leaders spearhead GP bids to run Darzi polyclinics. (I'll stop posting articles to your talk page now.) This article is particularly interesting in terms of 'protectionism'. It's important to remember that GPs are independent contractors already, so for GPs to complain about 'private' providers entering the market is nonsense. It's also interesting to note that GPs' independence (which enables them to command higher salaries as well as having the benefits of being self-employed) is what enables the DH to push through this reform so quickly: GPs are not NHS employees. Millstream3 (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NHS London
Just bringing this new page to your attention (my current personal project is to tidy up all the special and strategic health authority pages). I moved a section of criticism from the DH page to here as it was about the Healthcare for London consultation (which is NHS London not the DH). Millstream3 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lung cancer & passive smoking
Hi, Nmg20. There is another argument about this at Talk:Lung cancer. I would appreciate your opinion if you have time. Thanks. Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

reviews, always ideal?
Hi Nmg,

What I believe to be the false notion, that reviews are always ideal, has spurned me to pose the question at the med. reliable sources page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#a_montage_of_correspondence.2C_on_reviews_and_citable_sources You are welcome to offer input.

I'm also hoping you have a better memory then I do. I remember a while back there was a contributor who tried to use a review from the 80's to make his point that ECT caused brain damage. Do you remember that and could you find that easily on the talk page? If you could that would be much appreciated. --scuro (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tobacco
Hi! Would you be interested in helping to establish a WikiProject covering all aspects of tobacco? If so, please sign up here - cheers! bd2412 T 06:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC Health effects of tobacco
An RFC is being conducted at Talk:Health effects of tobacco, I thought you might be interested. 04:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)